Preamble

The House, met at a Quarter past two o'clock'

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA

Demobilised Officers (Gratuities)

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware that Major Forbes-Leith and other officers, who were demobilised in India in 1944, are still awaiting payment of their gratuities; and, in view of the promises previously made by his Department and of the great inconvenience caused, if he will take immediate action in the matter.

The Under-Secretary of State for India (Mr. Arthur Henderson): I very much regret the delay which has occurred in regard to the payment of gratuity in these cases, and I have made urgent representations to the Government of India with a view to their settlement without further delay.

Sir J. Lucas: While I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, may I ask if he is aware that the Field Controller of Military Accounts at Poona says they are still waiting for instructions from the Adjutant-General before they can pay him?

Mr. Henderson: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me that in-

formation. My information is to the contrary.

Post and Telegraph Staff (Pay and Conditions)

Mr. William Williams: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is aware of the growing unrest among post and telegraph staff in India regarding existing standards of pay and general conditions of service; whether his attention has been drawn to a memorandum submitted to the Director-General of Posts and Telegraphs by the Federation of Post and Telegraph Unions; and what action he proposes to take to ensure that speedy and sympathetic consideration is given to the claims submitted on behalf of the staff and so prevent a possible general stoppage of work in this important public service.

Mr. A. Henderson: The memorandum to which the hon. Member refers was not brought to the notice of my Noble Friend since the questions at issue are within, the competence of the Government of India to settle. It has, however, been ascertained that the Government of India have announced their intention to appoint a Commission, predominantly non-official in character, to examine the whole question of scales of pay, conditions of service, etc., of all Government of India servants on which all legitimate interests, including the workers themselves, will be represented. Meanwhile substantial improvement in allowances is being given to certain categories of employees, including categories of postal and telegraph workers, and I am glad to say that the Postmen's Union and Federation have informed the Government of India that they, have suspended the strike notice.

Mr. Williams: Whilst I appreciate that statement, I should be glad to know whether the Commission is likely to start its work in the near future, because the situation is very bad.

Mr. Henderson: I think we can assume that it will.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman do anything to accelerate the consideration of this matter, in view of the fact that the conditions of labour and pay are certainly very bad indeed?

Mr. Henderson: I think we can take it, as I said a moment ago, that the Commission will sit almost immediately. But I shall be glad to do what I can.

Sir Stanley Reed: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman set his face against any proposal from this House to impose on the taxpayers or consumers in India?

Mr. Henderson: That is another question.

Thorium Deposits, Travancore

Mr. Blackburn: asked the Undersecretary of State for India whether he is now able to state by whom the extensive deposits of thorium in Travancore, India, are owned; and what steps have been taken to control its disposal.

Mr. A. Henderson: The deposits in Travancore are the property of the State of Travancore. Adequate steps to control their disposal have been taken by the State authorities in consultation with the Crown Representative.

Mr. Blackburn: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind that these are the largest deposits of thorium in the world, from which it is highly probable that both atomic bombs and atomic power can be produced? Will the British Government consider trying to acquire these deposits outright?

Mr. Henderson: I should like to see that question on the Paper.

Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is not this a matter of the very greatest importance, and ought not the Government to have acquired the deposits before now?

Mr. Henderson: I have not said that the Government did not know about it.

Disturbances (Church Property)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for India, if he is aware that certain Indian political leaders have suggested Indians should personally share the financial burden of restoring church property destroyed in the recent disturbances; to what extent the Indian Government or the provincial governments are responsible for restoration and repair; if the offer has been accepted; and what is the estimated cost of the damage.

Mr. A. Henderson: I have seen in the Press a statement by Maulana Abul Kalam Azed that he had visited the American Episcopal Methodist Church damaged in recent disturbances in Calcutta, and had suggested to the Church Committee that the damage should be made good by contributions

from the citizens, and that he is issuing instructions to local Congress Committees to raise the necessary funds. Beyond this, I have no information regarding the suggestion referred to by my hon. Friend or the estimated cost of damage to church property, but I will make inquiries. With regard to the responsibility for the cost of repair and restoration I would invite attention to the reply which I gave the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 4th March.

Civil Service (European Recruits)

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for India on what terms European recruits are being accepted for the Indian Civil Service, and what arrangements are entered into with them now, for compensation in the event of their early retirement being caused by constitutional changes.

Mr. A. Henderson: As the answer to this Question is rather long, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it with the Official Report.

Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman give the essence of it now, as the matter is of public importance?

Mr. Henderson: There are a good many details in the statement, and it will take some time to go through them.

Mr. Sorensen: Can we take it that the compensation is extremely generous?

Mr. Henderson: What is generous is always a matter of opinion.

Following is the answer:

Appointments will be made by the Secretary of State for India but candidates are being warned that their appointments under the Secretary of State will be liable to be terminated at any time on account of constitutional changes, subject to their being given 12 months' notice. Candidates are being informed that if, as a result of constitutional changes, an officer's appointment under the Secretary of State is terminated and he does not receive and accept an offer to continue toserve under government in India, he will be entitled to the grant appropriate to his length of service as shown in the annexed table. It is, however, hoped that many of the officers whose appointments under the Secretary of State are terminated will be invited and will be willing to continue to serve under government in India. In


such cases the grants appropriate to their length of service under the Secretary of State will be placed to their credit with an independent authority and will be paid to them on their leaving the service of government in India or to their heirs if they die while still serving. The conditions for the continuance of their service under government in India will be for settlement by the Indian Government concerned.

Annex


Grants admissible to "war service" recruits to the Indian Civil Service


Length of Service and Grant admissible to officers whose appointments under the Secretary of State are terminated on account of constitutional changes.


Years.
£


5 
4,000


6 
5,000


7 
6,000


8 
7,000


9 
8,000


10
9,000


11
10,000


12
11,000


13 
12,000


14 
13,000


15 
14,000



16 
15,000


17
15,000


18 
15,000


19 

15,000


20
15,000


21 
15,000


22
15,000


23 
15,000


24 
15,000


25 or over



NOTE 1.—In the event of an officer's appointment under the Secretary of State being terminated on account of constitutional changes before he has completed 5 years' service, he will be entitled to such proportionate grant as the Secretary of State may decide.


NOTE 2.—In the case of an Indian officer the grant admissible will at his option be paid in rupees, the sterling sum being converted into rupees at such rate of exchange as the Secretary of State may prescribe.

Food Supplies

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Undersecretary of State for India the total quantity and nature of extra food supplies that have reached, and have been despatched to, India to meet the present food crisis.

Mr. A. Henderson: Actual arrivals of wheat in India between 30th December, 1945, and 2nd March this year amounted to over 240,000 tons, and it is anticipated that about 250,000 tons of wheat will arrive in India between 3rd March and 30th April on the basis of shipments

which have taken place, or are taking place, from North America and Australia during January, February and March. In addition, 75,000 tons of rice from Burma arrived in India during December and January. Further supplies are dependent on the deliberations of the Combined Food Board in Washington which are expected to be made known shortly. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of Food, and the Indian Food Delegation are making every possible effort in Washington to secure that the maximum quantity of cereals is allocated to India to meet the present food crisis.

Mr. Sorenen: Can we take it that, in view of the figures given, his anticipated, with greater optimism than previously, that we shall go a long way towards meeting the very grave deficit in food grains in India?

Mr. Henderson: I am not in a position to anticipate the decision of the Combined Food Board.

Mr. Hector Hughes: As the information with regard to the food supply in India has not been very satisfactory lately, will the hon. Gentleman see that the widest publicity is given to the quantities, location and distribution of food in India, so that the utmost use may be made of such food as is available to the people of India?

Mr. Henderson: I will certainly look into that suggestion.

Oral Answers to Questions — ITALIAN COLONIES (ADMINISTRATION)

Sir W. Wakefield: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) what arrangements have been made for carrying on the administration of Eritrea, Cyrenaica and Tripoli after the Peace Treaty with Italy has been signed and until such time as arrangements have been made for a more permanent administration of these territories,
(2) what steps are being taken to obtain the views of the inhabitants of Eritrea, Cyrenaica and Tripolitama on the form of their future administration after the signing of the Peace Treaty with Italy.

The Under-Seeretary of State for Foreign Affairs;Mr. McNeil): The future of the Italian Colonies is being considered by the Deputies to the Council of Foreign Ministers, and I am not therefore, in a position to make any statement at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDONESIA (DUTCH TROOP LANDINGS)

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is the present state of the negotiations between the Dutch and the Indonesian representatives; if he is aware that recent largelandings of Dutch troops have endangered the success of these negotiations and been followed by renewed outbreaks of violence, with consequent increases in British, Indonesian and Dutch casualties; and when the intention to land these troops at this time was communicated to the Indonesian representatives.

Mr. McNeil: The first formal meeting between Dr. van Mook and Dr. Sjahrir since the latter received a mandate to negotiate with the Dutch took place in Sir A. Clark Kerr's house in Batavia, on 13th March, and a further meeting was held on the 16th. For the time being it would clearly be out of place for me to make any detailed statement. As regards the second part of the Question, there is no evidence that the recent landings of Dutch troops have affected the negotiations or have been directly responsible for any increase in violence. As regards the third part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply today to a later Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus).

Mr. Warbey: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether British troops are being withdrawn pari passu with the landing of Dutch troops?

Mr. McNeil: Not without notice.

Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that British troops were sent there for the purpose of rounding up the Japanese, and not for keeping the Indonesians in subjection until Dutch troops arrive to take over?

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why an agreement was concluded with the Dutch Government before the opening of the Dutch-Indonesian negotiations to send Dutch troops to Indonesia; whether Dr. Sjahrir was informed of this arrangement before entering upon conversations with Dr. Van Mook; and what views have been expressed by the Indonesian negotiators on the Dutch troop landings.

Mr. McNeil: The despatch of Dutch troops to various parts of the Netherlands

East Indies, including Java, has been in progress for some time, and the recent landings in Java were a continuation of this process, and therefore not the subject ofany specific agreement with the Netherlands Government. Sir Archibald Clark Kerr informed Dr. Sjahrir of the arrangements for the landings on the evening of 7th March, that is two days before the landings began and six days before negotiations were resumed with Dr. Van Mook; on 12th March, the day before the resumption of negotiations, Dr. Sjahrir lodged with the British Force Commander a protest against the re-entry of these troops.

Mr. Zilliacus: Will the Government make it clear that in no circumstancescan this situation be utilised to reimpose Dutch rule, directly or indirectly, with the aid of the British occupation Forces, and arrangements made with the Dutch?

Mr. Thurtle: Is it not very desirable that as soon as possible the British troops should be replaced by Dutch troops?

Mr. McNeil: It is the desire of the Government that our troops in all theatres should be released as soon as possible.

Mr. Gallacher: What about the Indonesians?

Oral Answers to Questions — RUHR AND RHINE LAND

Mr. Anthony Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is now in a position to make a statement regarding His Majesty's Government's attitude towards the French Government's proposals for the future of the Ruhr and the Rhineland.

Mr. McNeil: No, Sir.

Mr. Nutting: In that case, can the hon. Gentleman say what is the state of the Allied discussions on this matter? Will he, so far as the Government can, hasten a decision on this matter so as to create the necessary atmosphere for a unified policy for Germany?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend is, as far as possible, hastening these studies, and, of course, the French Government have now suggested the convening of a four-party conference on this subject.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the most vital things to fix up, if possible, is a unified policy regarding the future of Germany? In doing that, will he bear in mind that we neither wish, on the one


hand, to become camp followers of Uncle Sam, nor, on the other, to be suppliants at the throne of Moscow?

Oral Answers to Questions — PEACE TREATIES (EAST EUROPEAN NATIONS)

Mr. Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress is being made in the drafting of peace treaties with Finland, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria.

Mr. McNeil: I regret that I am unable to make any statement on this matter at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES)

Mr. Nutting: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the recent radical changes in the Japanese Constitution were approved by the Far Eastern Commission before being put into effect by General MacArthur.

Mr. McNeil: On 6th March the Japanese Government published the draft of a new Constitution which is to be submitted to the Diet after the general election next month. No changes of any land have yet been put into effect. The futurs constitutional structure of Japan is a matter of concern to all members of the Far Eastern Commission and, as the hon. Member is no doubt aware, the United States Secretary of State is reported to have stated at his Press Conference on 12th March that the draft Constitution would come before the Commission in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREECE

Police Force

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in view of the complaint of the Greek Premier that the police force is unreliable because of the number of members of the X organisation and other Right-wing terrorists it contains, whether he will ask Sir Charles Wickham to make a further attempt to get rid of recruits formerly belonging to these groups.

Mr. McNeil: It has always been the policy of Sir Charles Wickham and the British Police Mission to advise the instant dismissal from the Greek police

and gendarmerie forces of any officer or man who is proved guilty of partiality in the execution of his duty or who can be shown to be a member of any illegal organisation.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the police forces recruited by Sir Charles Wickham were recruited on the basis of lists which proscribed any organisation connected with E.A.M. but did not proscribe any X organisations?

Mr. McNeil: That is not my information.

Mr. Blackburn: Is any action to be taken, in view of the Greek statement yesterday that Monarchist candidates are alone able to move about freely in Greece?

Mr. McNeil: There is another Question on the Order Paper more nearly related to that subject.

Mr. Benn Levy: Is it not the case that Sir Charles Wickham has, in fact, adopted the principle suggested by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus), and that this is not denied in the Question I specifically put some weeks ago?

Mr. McNeil: I cannot accept the suggestion that recruitment to this force has been made in relation to any one list.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Is it not a case that the X organisation has been declared clearly to be illegal by the Greek Government?

General Elections

Major Wilkes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the Greek Government's decree of Wednesday, 13th March, banning all political meetings throughout the period of the forthcoming elections; and if he has addressed any communication to the Greek Government on this subject.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make representations to the Greek Government against its prohibition of public meetings and demonstrations during the election campaign, on the ground that elections held in such conditions are incompatible with democracy.

Mr. McNeil: I am afraid that my hon. Friends have misunderstood the law relating to this subject. A Ministerial Order issued on 13th December, 1945, prohibited all public meetings in the open


air except those held in a walled or otherwise enclosed space. In view of the high state of feelings in Greece this seems to me a reasonable precaution to take. No fresh ban has been placed on the right of free assembly in Greece.

Major Wakes: Is the Under-Secretary aware that at Salonika yesterday, as reported in "The Times" this morning, the Greek Prime Minister made a speech in which he said that the only freedom given to political candidates in the present state of security in Greece was that given to Monarchists? Is he aware that the result of the election would not be a true indication of popular feeling in Greece, and will he reconsider the question of holding elections at the end of this month in conditions which will probably mean civil war?

Mr. McNeil: Like my hon. and gallant Friend, I have seen Press reports of the alleged statement made by the Greek Prime Minister, but reporting from Athens has not always been on the highest level.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the Under-Secretary aware that the Greek Prime Minister has predicted that civil war will ensue after a Monarchist restoration as a direct result of this situation and that, if there is a civil war, a large part of world opinion will hold His Majesty's Government responsible?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: On a point of Order. Is it your habit, Mr. Speaker, to allow hypothetical questions of that sort to be asked?

Mr. Speaker: I did not think it was a hypothetical question: I thought it was a very direct one.

Mr. Walkden: Since there are 200 Allied observers in Greece, when are we likely to have a report, unofficial, official, printed or typed from these observers so that we can have some kind of impartial observations for Members of Parliament to study?

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government have been in receipt of a series of reports from this Commission. I will ask my right hon. Friend whether any of these can be published.

Mr. Austin: May it not be the case that those who are supplying my right hon. Friend with information on this very serious issue are deliberately misinforming him?

Mr. Thurtle: Does the Under-Secretary accept the hon Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) as the mouthpiece of world opinion?

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the critical position in Greece, he will consider paying an immediate visit there in order to consult at first hand with British and Greek authorities in that country.

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend does not consider- that any useful purpose would be served by such a visit.

Flight-Lieutenant Haire: In view of the far-reaching nature of the decision my right hon. Friend has taken not to postpone the elections, would he not care, in view, of the possible future happenings, to be bolstered up with his own firsthand impressions?

Mr. McNeil: My right hon. Friend has a great variety of reports available to him from Greece, including, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Walkden) has reminded us, reports from rather more than 300 independent observers.

Mr. Blackburn: Will there be a comprehensive statement by the Government on the Greek Premier's recent statement and, in view of the fact that the 1941 Labour Party Conference agreed—

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question to put to a Minister. It is the Minister who is here to give information which hon. Members desire to have.

Mr. Warbey: Has the Under-Secretary seen a further statement madeby the Greek Prime Minister—

Mr. Speaker: That has nothing to do with this Question. The Question deals with a visit by the Foreign Secretary to Greece.

Oral Answers to Questions — SIAM (BRITISH INTERNEES)

Mr. Mc Adam: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action His Majesty's Government have taken to obtain from the Siamese Government full compensation for those British nationals who were interned in concentration camps prior to Siam becoming a belligerent in the Japanese war.

Mr. McNeil: The questionof compensation for war-prejudice of all kinds suffered by British interests in Siam is now under active consideration. His Majesty's Government have expressed their agreement with a suggestion by the Siamese Government that an Anglo-Siamese Claims Committee shall be set up to investigate claims.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS (PRESS AND RADIO FACILITIES)

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will press, at the next meeting of the United Nations, for the giving of complete Press and radio facilities by all members for the official statements of members of the organisation.

Mr. McNeil: His Majesty's Government will take every opportunity to emphasise their view that full publicity for the work and proceedings of the United Nations is essential to the success of the organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Street Name Plates

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will consider taking powers to make it compulsory for local authorities to provide name plates easily readable by day and night at all intersections.

The Minister of War Transport (Mr. Barnes): In my reply to the hon. Member on 14th February, I expressed the hope that local authorities would give special attention to the subject of street name plates in the light of the recommendation of the Traffic Signs Committee, whose report has now been published. I sent a copy of this report to all highway authorities on 1st March. Before considering seeking powers of compulsion, I would prefer that local authorities should have reasonable opportunity under existing statutory provisions to give effect to the recommendations of the report

Mr. Shepherd: In view of the importance of obtaining uniformity in this matter, will the Minister give an undertaking that if he does not get results, he will seek the powers which are necessary?

Mr. Barnes: I will certainly give the matter further consideration, if my requests are not acted upon.

Motor Car Purchases

Squadron-Leader Donner: asked the Minister of War Transport when the free market in motor cars will be re-established; what are the conditions restricting the use and resale in respect of motor cars bought under permit; and at what date these restrictions will cease to apply.

Mr. Barnes: Except for reconditioned surplus Government motor cars, there have been no restrictions on the acquisition or disposal of motor cars since the beginning of this year. The manufacturers undertook, in respect of each model, not to supply other would-be purchasers until they had cleared any outstanding licences issued by my Department before the scheme was closed down.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Would the Minister answer the second part of the Question?

Mr. Barnes: The restriction ceased to operate on 1st January.

Squadron-Leader Donner: Does that apply to motor cars bought under permit?

Mr. Barnes: Cars that were bought under permit were bought under licences from my Department, and the issue of licences for the purchase of cars ceased on 1st January.

Wing-Commander Hulbert: Does that mean that cars bought under permit can now be sold by the owners without restriction?

Mr. Barnes: When a car was bought under permit, it became the personal property of the owner, and I accept no further responsibility.

Captain Marsden: I bought a car under permit last year on the assurance that I would not sell it for 12 months. Should I be at liberty to sell it now?

Mr. Barnes: I would like to look into the conditions under which the hon. and gallant Gentleman obtained it.

Safety Measures

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: askedthe Minister of War Transport whether any decision has yet been made to authorise the fixing of warning notices on trunk roads where there is a sudden change in the surface of such roads.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Mr. G.Strauss): I do not think it desirable to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Member. Any such warning notice


as suggested would be misleading unless it was sufficiently detailed to indicate the conditions under which it became operative.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that many accidents are caused by vehicles coming off a road surface, which grips well, and going on to a surface on which a driver might skid? Is it not desirable, therefore, in order to avoid accidents, to warn motorists as I have suggested?

Mr. Strauss: I do not think a warning notice would really be the best way of tackling that difficulty. Considerable care is taken by my Department and local authorities to get surfaces which are bad into a safe state.

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of War Transport whether, in view of the high accident rate, he will arrange that dangerous road surfaces, particularly those of wooden blocks, will be constantly treated with sand, gravel, etc., in inclement weather.

Mr. Strauss: The application of grit to roads which have become slippery as a result of weather conditions is standard practice and I do not think that highway authorities require to be reminded of their responsibilities in this connection.

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will, as a spur to the safety first campaign, arrange for the rigorous prosecution of motorists who do not observe the courtesy of the road, particularly during the hours of darkness.

Mr. Strauss: The enforcement of the traffic law is a matter for the police. Where discourteous conduct on the roads does not involve a breach of the law it must be dealt with by measures other than prosecution.

Mr. Lavers: While I thank the Minister for his reply, is he aware that the practice followed on highways at nights is definitely a menace to motorists? We appreciate that the highway code could not be fully enforced during the war period, but could it not be enforced now?

Mr. Lavers: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will consider the formation of a trained and experienced body of lecturers on safety first constantly to visit and lecture at schools throughout the country.

Mr. Strauss: Road safety training is commonly given in schools throughout the country. In many cases the valuable work of the teachers is supplemented by talks given by selected police officers and in my view the more extensive use of the police in this connection is preferable to the formation of a special body of lecturers.

Haulage Vehicles (Empty Running)

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of War Transport what steps are being taken to reduce the 20 per cent. empty running of vehicles operated by the Government's road haulage organisation.

Mr. Barnes: The Road Haulage Organisation is constantly on the watch for opportunities of avoiding empty running and thereby improving on its already good record in this respect.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: While I thank the Minister for his answer, I regret the use of the words "good record" because all the Members are not of the same manner of thinking.

Fruit and Vegetable Haulage

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: asked the Minister of War Transport to what extent the Government's road haulage organisation are in a position to provide suitable vehicles, when required to transport Messrs. Chivers' fruit and vegetables from the Cambridge area to the London markets.

Mr. Barnes: I am informed that at the present time the Road Haulage Organisation is meeting all demands for suitable vehicles for Messrs. Chivers' fruit and vegetable traffic from Cambridge to London.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Will the Minister bear in mind that this was only quite recently, and that on many occasions there was depreciation in the quality of the vegetables owing to the firm not being able to obtain the transport?

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Singapore Docks

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Minister of War Transport whether his Department has a representative at Singapore with a voice in the control of the docks, or whether the military are in complete charge; and whether he


will give an estimate of the average rates of loading and discharging cargo per day per ship at Singapore.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir, my Department is represented at Singapore and my representative has a voice in the control of the operation of the docks insofar as it affects commercial shipping. The capacity of the port has continued to improve since it commenced to operate after liberation. During the month of February last, some 6,300 tons per day were handled through the port. The gradual return to more normal conditions should bring continued improvement.

Passenger Services, South America

Sir Hugh O'Neill: asked the Minister of War Transport what prospect there is of an improvement in the passenger shipping services between the Republic of Colombia and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Barnes: The pressure on passenger services is so great that I must use the limited resources at my disposal on the busiest routes, and I cannot hold out hopes of an improvement of this particular service in the near future.

Sir H. O'Neill: asked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware that a number of British subjects resident in Brazil are awaiting transport to the United Kingdom; andwhat prospect there is of improving the shipping services so as to enable these people to come home.

Mr. Barnes: Yes, Sir. The present service is now being substantially improved by the release of a passenger liner from trooping service. This ship will be employed without complete conversion in voyages to and from the River Plate, and it is intended to reserve part of her passenger accommodation for passengers to and from Brazil.

Sir H. O'Neill: Will the Minister say if his answer means that these ships will call at Brazilian ports?

Mr. Barnes: I cannot say at the moment at which ports these vessels will call. If the right hon. Member requires any further information regarding the direct routes, I shall be pleased to furnish it.

Sir H. O'Neill: Cannot the Minister arrange for some large passenger ships to

call at several South American ports in order to take away the large number of people waiting for transport?

Mr. Barnes: I am very anxious to deal with this problem of civilian transport, and this is one of the steps being taken to ease the situation in Brazil.

Passengers to Dominions

Mr. Maclay: asked the Minister of War Transport what numbers of civilian passengers are registered with his Ministry, or with booking agents, as awaiting passages to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa, respectively; and how many such passengers he expects will be cleared monthly, on an average, to each destination throughout the next 12 months.

Mr. Barnes: The crude figures of numbers of passengers registered would not convey any useful information. Many of the registrations are duplicated and the figures would give no reliable indication of the effective demand for passages. As regards the second part of the Question, accommodation likely to be available for civilian passages depends very largely upon the demands for repatriation of our troops overseas and it is not possible to give any reliable forecast for more than a few weeks ahead. I am, however, fully aware of the importance of transporting civilians to the Dominions, and I am using every available opportunity to the full.

Mr. Maclay: While I appreciate the great difficulty with which the Minister is faced in dealing with this question of moving civilian passengers, does he not realise that this is causing a great deal of feeling among Dominion citizens; and has he considered making a public statement not only to the Dominion Governments, but to Dominion citizens, if necessary by issuing pamphlets, explaining the difficulties?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Has the Minister seen Press reports to the effect that Australian soldiers in Melbourne are threatening a demonstration because their wives are not given passages by his Department to go out to them; and that the present policy of his Department is very severely restricting immigration?

Mr. Barnes: I do not agree that the policy of my Department is restrictive. Icannot accept that for one moment. I am, of course, aware of the feeling which


is prevalent, but I must again emphasise to the House that repatriation of our own soldiers who have wives and children waiting for them in this country must have priority. In view of that overriding responsibility, I can assure hon. Members that I am giving this matter constant attention, particularly for the purpose of moving these people to the Dominions.

Outbreaks of Fire

Sir J. Lucas: asked the Minister of War Transport the number of fires on ships in the Liverpool area during the past month; and, in view of the shortage of shipping, what steps are being taken both to protect the ships from arson and for the early discovery of fires.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of War Transport whether his attention has been called to a series of serious outbreaks of fire in ships; and if he has any statement to make, especially in respect of sabotage.

Mr. Barnes: There were seven outbreaks of fire in ships in the Liverpool docks during the month of February and three outbreaks on 1st March. All the outbreaks were of a minor character causing no serious damage except in the case of the "Empire Waveney ", where a fire which broke out on 1st March resulted in the complete gutting of the ship. A fire occurred on the "Queen Elizabeth" at Southampton, on 8th March, but was extinguished before it assumed serious proportions. In view of the increasing number of passenger liners undergoing reconditioning, I recently communicated with the Associations of shipowners, ship repairers and shipbuilders urging the necessity for the maximum precautions against fire to be taken in every case. In addition, I have issued a circular to the authorities at the principal ports in the United Kingdom requesting them to take all possible steps to increase the precautionary measures at their ports against further outbreaks of fire on ships in ports. These organisations and the workers' unions concerned have been asked to initiate a propaganda campaign against careless action which might lead to fire. I understand that the cause of the fires in the "Empire Waveney" and "Queen Elizabeth" is being investigated by the Police.

Sir J. Lucas: Can the Minister say if any of these fires were caused by sabotage?

Mr. Barnes: No evidence has so far been submitted to me which suggests sabotage. As I have indicated in the final part of my reply, the police are still investigating fires which occurred on the "Empire Waveney" and the "Queen Elizabeth ".

Sir J. Lucas: Have any of the fires occurring on ships in the Liverpool area been investigated?

Mr. Barnes: It is not necessary to investigate the others because we are satisfied that there was no sabotage.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister satisfied that the fires, in the other instances, were not the work and initiative of foreign agents?

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the likelihood of nationalisation of transport, will the Minister keep his eyes on the Tory Party?

" Queen Elizabeth" (Use)

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of War Transport why the "Queen Elizabeth "was not used, as requested by the Government of Australia, to take British brides to Australia and bring back food, instead of being reconstructed for the purpose of earning dollars.

Mr. Barnes: I have not received any request from the Government of Australia for the "Queen Elizabeth" to be used as suggested. The "Queen Elizabeth" was specially built for North Atlanticservice. She cannot be operated efficiently on voyages to the East, where there are no ports at which she can go alongside. The ship could not bring back food to this country, as her cargo space is negligible. She could not carry large numbers of women and children without considerable preparatory fitting. I fully appreciate the need for providing transport for passengers to Australia and am doing all I can with more suitable ships.

Sir T. Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a statement was made by a spokesman of the Australian Cabinet that this ship, or some equivalent number of ships, should be put at the disposal of that Government to bring the brides to Australia; and in view of the shortage of brides in Australia, and


the shortage of food here, will the right hon. Gentleman put an equivalent number of ships on the service?

Mr. Barnes: I should like to inform hon. Members that I am getting on very well with Australian brides.

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: Can the Minister say whether it is a fact that the "Queen Mary" and the "Queen Elizabeth "cannot go through the Suez Canal?

Mr. Barnes: I think my answer conveyed that very clearly.

German Tonnage (Allocation, United Kingdom)

Mr. J. L. Williams: asked the Minister of War Transport what is the number and tonnage of ships recently allocated, or due to be allocated, from the German merchant fleet to Great Britain; and whether they are to form part of the British Merchant Navy on other than a temporary basis.

Mr. A. Barnes: The Tripartite Merchant Marine Commission in Berlin divided ex-German ships into three shares. The number of ships allocated to the United Kingdom was 147 of 435,000 gross register tons. The United Kingdom and United States Governments have agreed to provide out of their shares appropriate amounts for other Allied States whose merchant marines have suffered heavy losses in the war against Germany, except that the U.S.S.R. has undertaken to make provision for Poland out of her share. This re-allocation of the United Kingdom and United States shares will be undertaken by the Inter-Allied Reparation Agency in Brussels. The ships finally allocated to the United Kingdom will be at the complete disposal of His Majesty's Government.

Mr. Williams: Is the Minister aware of the anxiety among shipbuilding workers with regard to the eventual effect of this policy upon employment?

Mr. Barnes: My hon. Friend may rest assured that this aspect has received the very careful consideration of the Government.

Mr. Hector Hughes: How many of these ships are fishing vessels which could be allocated to the fishing fleets?

Mr. Barnes: I should say practically none of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Trainmen (Working Hours)

Mr. Me Adam: asked the Minister of War Transport what steps he proposes to take to reduce the excessive hours worked by trainmen on the four main line companies' systems, having in mind the fact that for the week beginning 12.1 a.m. on Monday, 7th January, and ending 12.0 midnight on Saturday, 12th January, 16,347 drivers and 11,837 goods guards worked more than 10 hours, and 156,361 drivers and 83,280 goods guards worked over eight hours and up to 10 hours.

Mr. Barnes: The number of instances when the hours of duty of drivers and goods guards exceeded eight but not 10 during the week in question were in fact 92,838 and 32,094 respectively. A great deal of this overtime was incurred while travelling home as passengers, booking on duty, examining notices and preparing engines. With the increasing inflow of men from the Forces, I hope that it will be possible to reduce the amount of overtime worked by railwaymen.

Night Expresses, London-Scotland

Mr. Boothby: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will represent to the railway companies that, in the interests of the business community, the night expresses between London and Scotland should now revert to their pre-war timing; and, in particular, that the time of departure at each end should bepostponed by not less than one hour.

Mr. Barnes: Services cannot yet be restored to their prewar level but I am glad to say that the summer time tables, to be introduced on 6th May, will provide some improvements.

Mr. Boothby: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what advantages are derived from starting people off at 9.30 and putting them out at 6.30 when they can be started at 10.30 and be put out at 7.30?

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister further aware that the strictures of the Leader of the House and of the Scottish Members would be removed if the times were altered?

Mr. Barnes: This question of meeting the convenience of different Members is not easy to effect, but I am prepared to listen to representations on these matters.

Services, Aberdeen

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Minister of War Transport if he is aware that county cricket championship matches at Aberdeen on six Saturdays during the coming season may have to be cancelled unless the last trains south can be altered from 5.15 p.m., L.N.E.R., and 5.25 p.m., L.M.S., to the prewar times of 7.30 p.m. and 7.45 p.m., respectively; and whether, in the interests of the public and of those anxious to play or watch cricket, the necessary additions can be made to the train service on Saturdays during the summer months.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of War Transport if he will announce the revised spring and summer transport, late on Saturday evenings, to and from the city of Aberdeen, soon enough to permit the local cricket and other sporting clubs to arrange their programmes of events for the forthcoming season.

Mr. Barnes: The practicability of including later trains from Aberdeen in the summer timetable will be considered and I will inform the hon. Members as soon as a decision is reached.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: When that consideration is being made, will the right hon. Gentleman bear inmind that in England county cricket car be seen almost every day of the week, but in Scotland it is only on six days that county cricket can be seen, and cricket supporters are relying upon the Minister to provide transport for it?

Mr. Boothby: can the right hon. Gentleman seriously state what is the advantage of starting these trains so early? What is the gain? What is the point of it?

Mr. Hector Hughes: In considering this question, will the Minister realise that it affects not only the sporting Aberdonians but also the commercial. industrial and social interests of that city?

Mr. Barnes: I can only repeat that this matter will receive consideration when the new time lists are brought out. With regard to the hon. Member's question of the timing of trains, I think he will appreciate that the timing of trains involves a number of other services and a single train route cannot be taken into account by itself.

Clerical Workers (Cheap Fares)

Mr. David Eccles: asked the Minister of War Transport whether he will make arrangements, to extend to clerical workers the special facilties for cheap railway tickets which arc at present issued only to manual workers on the production of a certificate from the employer.

Mr. Barnes: No, Six. Workmen's tickets were originally intended only for artisans, mechaines and labourers who travelled in the early morning hours and although the former qualification is not usually enforced during the normal early morning hours of issue, it is an essential feature of any practicable arrangement for issue outside those hours

Mr. Eeeles: In view of the Prime Minister's appeal to clerical workers, does not the Minister think that it is unfair that on certain trains on which both manual workers and clerical workers travel, one should enjoy a cheap ticket and the other should not?

Mr. Barnes: While Iappreciate the difficulties of certain inequalities, on the other hand, an extension of these matters very often involves further difficulties than the difficulties which it is attempted to remedy.

Mr. George Wallace: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that, bluntly, these requests are due to the fact that clerical workers are grossly underpaid as compared with other workers?

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRIAL NATIONALISATION

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to introduce a Bill to nationalise the iron and steel industries and the railways, respectively.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): A Bill to provide for the nationalisation and better co-ordination of transport, on the lines indicated in the Lord President's statement to the House on 19th November, will be introduced in an early Session of this Parliament. While I appreciate very much the enthusiasm of the hon. Member, I must ask him to have a little patience. The Government are not yet in a position to make a statement about their policy regarding the iron and steel industries.

Sir W. Smithers: May I ask the Prime Minister whether his request for patience


and delay means that he is beginning to realise that the policy of nationalisation of these industries leads to disaster?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has been pressing me so much recently on nationalisation that I felt I had to curb his impatience somewhat.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is the Prime Minister aware that the sooner legislation follows the endorsement of the Government's programme by the electors of this country the better the country will be pleased?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRODUCTION CAMPAIGN

Mr. George Hicks: asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government, after taking the initiative in calling national conferences of trade unions and employers' representatives upon the national necessity of increased industrial production, will now leave the problem of ways and means to the respective in dustries of employers and workpeople to discover and employ methods to give effect to the national request; and reduce political exhortation and interferences to a minimum.

The Prime Minister: It is the Governments s desire that employers and workpeople generally should know and understand the needs of the situation and should make their full contribution in finding methods of increasing production. I am glad to say that the fullest possible co-operation is being given in this matter by the representative organisations of employers and workpeople.

Mr. Hicks: Do I understand that my right hon. Friend refers specially to the Trades Union Congress General Council, and the British Federation of Employers?

The Prime Minister: Yes, those particularly, and others.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH WAR CASUALTIES

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Prime Minister if he will give, in tabulated form, the casualties, both fatal and other wise, in the R.N., the British Army, and the R.A.F. during the late war; and the casualties since 15th August.

The Prime Minister: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Cardiff (Mr. G. Thomas) on 29th November, 1945, when I gave figures of casualties reported up to 14th August, 1945. Inquiries are still proceeding as to the fate of those men reported missing. I hope shortly to issue a White Paper which will include revised figures of casualties suffered during the war.

Casualties (excluding deaths from natural causes) so far reported since the 15th August, 1945, are:

Killed (including died of wounds
and injuries)


1,066


Wounded
668


Missing
35o


Total 
2,084

Mr. Allighan: Would my right hon. Friend kindly look into the Question again, because I particularly asked that the casualties for the three Services should be respectively specified? Is he aware that relatives of men in these Services wish to know the figures, and that his answer has not conveyed that information?

The Prime Minister: I will see that it is set out in the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — WOMEN'S SERVICES (COMPARATIVE CONDITIONS)

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Prime Minister if he will set out the position of the W.L.A. in respect of clothing coupon surrender on recruitment, clothing and boots during service, clothing and coupons on discharge, length of notice before dismissal for illness, free travel, cheap cigarettes, board and lodging, laundering, use of N.A.A.F.I. canteens, gratuity on discharge, entitlement to resettlement grant and reinstatement rights; and if he will give similar facts for each of the women's auxiliary services.

The Prime Minister: As the information is lengthy and voluminous I propose, with my hon. Friend's permission, to circulate it in the Official Report.

Following is the statement:

Women's Land Army.
A.T.S
W.R.N.S
W.A.A.F.


Clothing Coupon surrender on recruitment.
For use of Government provided uniform 10 coupons arc
surren dered each rationing year from the civilian allowance plus 10
supplementary coupons for Agricultural workers.
Civilian clothing book surrendered
…
As A.T.S
…
As A.T.S.


Clothing and Boots provided during service.
Overcoat, oilskin or mac, hat, sou'wester, breeches two
pairs, 3 shirts, 2 woollen pullovers, 6 pairs socks, 1 pair shoes, 1 pair
boots, gumboots or boots with leggings, 2 overall coats, 2 dungarees.
Replacements as necessary, normally once a year. Different conditions
applied in 1942, 1943 and 1944.
All provided
…
…
…
All provided with kit upkeep allow ance.
As A.T.S.


Clothing and coupons on discharge.
Bonus issue of 20 coupons after and up to 4 years' service,
30 coupons after 4 and up to 5 years' service and 35 coupons after 5 years.
After 6 months service greatcoat, shoes and shirt are retained
No clothing in kind. Grant of£12 10s. and 56 coupons
plus 90 more coupons after at least one months' service. Certain articles
of uniform and underclothes are re-retained.
As A.T.S
As A.T.S.


Length of notice before dismissal for illness.
One week
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
…
If discharged on medical grounds 56 days' paid leave is
granted plus any for overseas service.
As A.T.S
As A.T.S.


Free travel
…
After each 3 months full time and satisfactory service,
free travel warrants are issued.
At present 4 privilege leave warrants per year.
As A.T.S 
…
As A.T.S.


Cheap cigarettes
…
No special arrangement
…
…
…
…
…
…
Yes
…
…
…
…
…
Yes
…
…
Yes.


Board and lodging
…
Where a Land Army member is provided with board and lodging
by her employer on the farm or elsewhere, the farmer is entitled to make a
deduction from wages in respect of the board and lodging which he provides
at maximum rates fixed under Orders of the Agricultural Wages Board. Where
a Land Army member lives in a private billet she receives her weekly wage 

in full and herself pays for her board and lodging. But Land Army
Regulations prescribe that she shall be left with a cash wage of at least
22s. 6d. a week, apart from earnings by overtime.
Free or an allowance is paid
…
…
As A.T.S.
…
As A.T.S


Laundering
…
…
No special arrangement
…
…
…
…
…
…
Free for approved scale
…
…
As. A.T.S.
…
As A.T.S.


Use of N.A.A.F.I. CanteensGratuity on discharge.
Land Army members are not members of H.M. Forces and
consequently are not admitted to N.A.A.F.I. Canteens where admission is
restricted to service personnel. None. There is, however, a W.L.A.
Benevolent Fund to which the Government has made substantial
contributions.
Yes
…
…
…
…
…
Yes
…
…
Yes.


Gratuity on discharge
None. There is, however, a W.L.A. Benevolent Fund to which
tyhe Government has made substantial contributions.
Yes, on rank and length of service
…
As A.T.S.
…
A.T.S


Resettlement Grant
Ex-members of the. Women's Land Army are not eligible under
the Resettlement Grant Scheme.
Eligible
…
…
…
…
As A.T.S.
…
As A.T.S


Reinstatement rights.
Service in the Women's Land Array does not confer rights
under the Reinstatement in civil employment Act.
Eligible
…
…
…
…
As A.T.S
…
As A.T.S

Oral Answers to Questions — SCIENTIFIC MANPOWER COMMITTEE (REPORT)

Wing-Commander Millington: asked the Lord President of the Council when the Report of the Scientific Manpower Commission may be expected.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The Committee on Scientific Manpower hope to present a report within the next few weeks. When I have received it I will give careful consideration to the question of publication.

Wing-Commander Millington: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the publication of the Report of this Committee will go a long way to allay the disquiet particularly felt by scientific staffs at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough, nearly 50 per cent. of whom have received redundancy notices?

Mr. Morrison: I will keep that consideration in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Illegal Trading

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that barter trading takes place between the staff of the Control Commission in Germany and German people; and whether he will take steps to put an end to this.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): All possible steps are taken, and will continue to be taken, to prevent illegal trading between the staff of the Control Commission and the German people.

Mr. Brown: Is the Minister aware that in spite of all those possible steps being taken the degree of this barter trading is very considerable, and will he think out some supplementary steps to stop it?

Mr. Hynd: The situation is well in mind, and the attention of the authorities of the Control Commission has been drawn to the importance of dealing with this matter. The few cases which have come to light have been very thoroughly dealt with.

Mr. Walkden: Does not my right hon. Friend receive reports, like ordinary Members receive them? Is he aware that tea coffee and cigarettes are now used by high ranking officers in the Allied Control Commission as barter, to pay for meals?

Mr. Hynd: Where any information of a firm kind is received in these cases, the necessary steps are taken to deal with them through dismissal, prosecution, and the usual disciplinary methods in the case of the Armed Forces.

Control Commission (Accounts Staff, Kensington)

Mr. W. J. Brown: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the accounts staff of the Control Commission for Germany and Austria were trans ferred to the condemned buildings at Nos. 45 and 46, Princes Gardens, Kensington, before preparations were made to remedy the filthy condition in which they were left by the previous occupants; and whether he will take immediate steps to rehouse this section of the staff in conditions no worse than first division personnel or officers from the military element of the Commission.

Mr. J. Hynd: Iregret that these premises were not as clean as they should have been when the staffmoved in. This was due to the urgency of the move and the difficulty of recruiting cleaners. The position was remedied very quickly. The accommodation had previously been occupied by military staff of the Control Commission, and it is comparable to otheraccommodation in the area still occupied by military staff. There is no question of the buildings having been condemned.

Adviser on Jewish Affairs (Appointment)

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has any statement to make about the appointment of an adviser on Jewish affairs in Germany.

Mr. Orbach: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he has considered the appointment of an adviser on Jewish problems to the Control Commission in Germany and the Commission in Austria.

Mr. J. Hynd: After consultation with the Board of Deputies of British Jews I have appointed Lieut.-Colonel R. B. Solomon, M.C., as adviser on Jewish affairs to the British element of the Control Commission for Germany. Lieut.-Colonel Solomon will be proceeding to Germany early next month. It is not at present proposed to make a similar appointment in the case of Austria.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE

Women's Land Army

Major Digby: asked the Minister of Agriculture if he will consider a revision ofthe wages of members of the W.L.A. to enable a girl who is living at home and paying her parents for her keep to be paid on the same basis as a girl who is living on the farm where she is employed.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): All members of the Women's Land Army are entitled to wages at not less than the minimum rates fixed by the Agricultural Wages Board. In a case where the employer provides a worker with board and lodging, he may reckon the value at not more than the amount prescribed for the purpose by the county agricultural wages committee and pay the worker only the balance of the minimum wage in cash. A girl living at home receives the minimum wage in full in cash, and what she pays her parents for her board and lodging is a private matter.

Major Digby: Is the Minister aware that girls living at home get about 5s. a week less because they have to pay Income Tax, while other girls with whom they work live in lodgings and get that much a week more?

Mr. Williams: The question of Income Tax is one for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and not for me.

Pigs (Prices)

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister ofAgriculture if, in allocating the additional price fixed for fat pigs from 1st July onwards, he will give special consideration to lightweight porkers marketed in the period July-September, so as to alleviate in part the losses falling on farmers who started to breed more pigs on the assurance of increased feeding stuff rations.

Mr. T. Williams: Discussion will shortly be held with the Farmers' Unions on the detailed price adjustments necessary to effect the average increase in prices of fat pigs that was recently announced, and the point to which my hon. Friend refers will not be overlooked.

Mr. Hurd: Will the Minister be able to give some guidance by April, because a great number of pigs will be born in April, and farmers will have to decide

whether to knock them on the head at birth, or keep them?

Mr. Williams: I have said that this matter will be under consideration from an early date.

Implements for Hire

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will make pro vision whereby the W.A.E.Cs. through out the country are enabled to increase the number of agricultural implements available for hire by farmers, especially reapers, binders and potato spinners, since the implements are often not avail able when the weather is favourable; and whether he will consider reducing the high charges for hire and ensure that all implements are thoroughly serviced by competent agricultural engineers before being despatched from the depots.

Mr. T. Williams: I am not aware that the numbers of binders and potato spinners in the hands of war agricultural executive committees are insufficient to meet hiring requirements, but, if the hon. Member has in mind some particular local shortage, perhaps he will furnish me with details. I cannot agree to reduce the charges for the hire of implements, which are designed merely to cover costs. The servicing of implements will continue to be carried out to the highest practicable standard.

Mr. De la Bère: Is the House really to understand that the Minister of Agricultural is seriously saying that there is no shortage of agricultural implements in the country, when every farmer knows that there is? Further, is not the Minister aware that these implements, when not properly serviced before being sent out, do a great deal of mischief to food production?

Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member will be good enough to draw my attention to any specific local shortage, I will look into the matter.

Mr. De la Bère: I will spend the rest of the day doing so.

Forestry (Planting Grants)

Major John Morrison: asked the Minister of Agriculture what sums it is intended to pay as planting grants to forestowners under the proposed dedication scheme; and if these sums will be made restrospective to the season 1945–1946 pending dedication arrangements.

Mr. T. Williams: Details of the planting grants and other assistance intended to be given toforest owners under the proposed dedication scheme are set out in a printed Explanatory Note on the scheme, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. and gallant Member. The grants will be made retrospective to the season 1945–46, and will be payable as indicated in the Explanatory Note.

Sugar Beet

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has given consideration to increasing the production of sugar from home grown sugar beet in the coming season, by improving the intake of beet into certain factories and by extending the period of the campaign; and whether he will give an assurance that there is no form of international agreement that prevents an increased acreage of sugar beet in this country.

Mr. T. Williams: Beet sugar factories are already working to full capacity. The length of the factory campaign is limited by the period during which beet can be efficiently and economically processed, and the present length of the campaign could not be safely exceeded. As regards the second part of the Question, the limitations imposed by the International Sugar Agreement have been inoperative since the war began.

Mr. Dye: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of factories were not working at full capacity last season owing to breakdowns, and is he further aware that sugar beet, when harvested, can be kept for a long time and processed later?

Mr. Williams: The reply I have given is based on the best expert advice we can get. During the war, beet sugar factories were working up to absolute maximum capacity except, of course, for breakdowns, for which nobody could cater.

Mr. Dye: Is my right hon. Friend aware that farmers have been asked to produce as much sugar this year as was produced from the sugar beet crop of 1936?

Mr. Williams: My hon.Friend is referring to a record year, in which all the factors were favourable. We could not expect farmers to produce to the maximum each year unless we knew that the volume of sugar beet could be taken

through the factories within the three active months.

Dairy Cattle

Mr. Dye: asked the Minister of Agriculture what was the decrease in the number of dairy cattle kept in England and Wales as shown by each of the returns taken in 1945, as compared with similar returns in 1944; what are the estimated causes of the decline; and what steps he is taking to prevent such further decline as may lead to less milk being available in the future.

Mr. T. Williams: The number of cows and heifers in milk and in calf in England and Wales at quarterly intervals in 1945 showed decreases, as compared with the numbers at the corresponding dates in 1944, of 92,000 in March, 50,000 in June, 38,000 in September and 6,000 in December. Information is not available to indicate whether the reductions are among beef cattle or dairy cattle respectively, but sales of milk in 1945 showed a significant and consistent increase over 1944. For some time farmers have been consistently encouraged to expand milk production by better breeding, more attention to disease prevention, and efficiency in herd management. All practicable measures are also being taken to overcome labour difficulties, including the development of relief milker schemes.

Mr. Dye: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent increase in the supply of milk might be due to a very favourable season?

Mr. Williams: I rather prefer to believe that the increase in milk supplies, with a smaller number of cattle, is due perhaps to more efficiency.

Mr. Hurd: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the offer of cooperation made by the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board on 7th March, he will now consult with the Board and the National Farmers' Union in order to evolve a systematic plan for building up disease-free dairy herds in advance of a further extension of the compulsory pasteurisation of milk supplies.

Mr. T. Williams: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) on 28th January, of which I am sending him a copy. At the moment I cannot usefully add to that


reply, but I hope to be in a position fairly soon to discuss this matter with producer interests.

Sheep

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he is now in a position to say what special steps it is proposed to take to increase the number of sheep in this country during the next few years.

Mr. T. Williams: The need for an increase in the acreage of tillage in this country unfortunately entails some setback to our hopes of an early revival of the sheep population. Steps are, however, being taken to encourage sheep production in the United Kingdom by the guarantee of minimum prices up to the summer of 1950, by the recently announced increase in the prices of fat sheep and lambs for 1946–7, and also by the proposals contained in the Hill Farming Bill which I introduced in this House on 18th February.

Vegetables (Allotments)

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Agriculture what is the present approximate annual value of vegetables sold off allotments in this country; and what steps are being taken to encourage allotment holders to grow for sale as well as for their own use by removing existing restrictions.

Mr. T. Williams: I regret that the information requested in the first part of the question is not available. So far as the Allotments Acts are concerned, I do not consider that such restrictions as there are on the sale of produce seriously interfere with food production, and I would not feel justified in taking action to remove them.

Prisoners of War (Wage Rates)

Colonel Ropner: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will postpone the increase in the rates of wages paid to prisoners of war engaged on agricultural work until he has ascertained whether the increased charge for wages may lead to a reduction in food production.

Mr. T. Williams: No, Sir. All relevant considerations were taken into account when the decision was made to increase, as from 1st April next, the charges to be made to farmers for the use of prisoner of war labour. The increase in the charge

was taken into account at the recent review of agricultural prices, the results of which I announced on nth March.

Colonel Ropner: Will the Minister consider, in producing a scheme, giving some concession in the case of men who have no agricultural experience?

Mr. Williams: I think that question might be referred to the Secretary of State for War.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPIRE INFORMATION SERVICES

Mr. Younger: asked the Undersecretary of State for Dominion Affairs how it is proposed to carry on the work of the Empire Division of the Ministry of Information, so far as the Dominions are concerned, when the Ministry comes to an end.

The Under-Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs (Mr. Parker): On 31st March, the functions of the Dominions Section ofthe Empire Division of the Ministry of Information will be transferred to the Dominions Office. An Information Department will be set up within the Dominions Office under the charge, for the time being, of Mr. P. N. S. Mansergh, O.B.E., now Director of the Empire Division of the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (LONDON MEETINGS)

Mr. Eden (by Private Notice): asked the Prime Minister whether he has any statement to make about the forthcoming consultations in London between the British Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

The Prime Minister: Consultations have been proceeding in the hope of arranging a meeting of British Commonwealth Prime Ministers to be held in London during April. Unfortunately, it has not proved possible to arrange a meeting at which all the Prime Ministers can be present simultaneously. Instead, arrangements have now been made to hold a series of consultations here at times convenient to all concerned. These will begin on 23rd April, when the Prime Minister of Australia and the right hon. Walter Nash, Minister of Finance of New Zealand (representing the New Zealand Prime Minister) will be in London. The


Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa will join the discussions later in April. The Prime Minister of Canada will be in London for discussions at a later date. The main subject for discussion will be matters pertaining to the Pacific, but the consultations will afford an opportunity for conversations on other matters of common concern. I am sure that the House will agree with me in welcoming this opportunity for discussions with our Commonwealth partners and for renewing valuable personal contacts.

Mr. Eden: While warmly welcoming what the Prime Minister has said about the possibilities of contacts, it does seem a little disappointing that they cannot take place altogether, because the value of this exchange of minds is to have so many minds, equally well-informed, who can exchange opinions. I do not know whether the Prime Minister could still bring that about, but I am surehe would agree that it would be even more valuable than the arrangement he has announced?

The Prime Minister: I very much agree with the right hon. Gentleman, but he knows the difficulties. These Prime Ministers have commitments to their own Parliaments and legislatures, and to get a time for all of them to come together in these difficult days is extraordinarily hard.

Mr. Vernon Bartlett: Will there be a chance of a Debate in the House before the first of those meetings, so that we can discuss here what possibilities there are of improving inter-Commonwealth consultations?

The Prime Minister: I do not think there is any specific need for that. Ithink the whole House is aware of the need for closer working together with the Dominions. I doubt whether there would be any special advantage in having a Debate before these consultations take place.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERIM DEVELOPMENT ORDERS (FAILURE TO LAY)

Mr. Keeling (by Private Notice): asked the Minister of Town and Country Planning whether the Government propose to introduce an indemnity bill in respect of their failure for six weeks to lay before

Parliament the far-reaching Provisional Town and Country Planning (General Interim Development) Order, 1946.

The Minister of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Silkin): No, Sir. No proceedings which would require an indemnity have been or would have been taken during the period in question.

Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that his mistake has had serious practical consequences, because this far-reaching Order has been in operation for six weeks, during which time it was impossible for the strong opposition to it to be voiced in the only possible way, namely, by a Prayer?

Mr. Silkin: I am not aware of any inconvenience that has arisen as a result of it, although, of course, I regret the fact that the Order was not laid before the House.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Has the Minister any statement to make with regard to the Mountain Ash and Rhondda Provisional Town and Country Planning (Special Interim Development) Order which, although dated 19th October, 1945, was only laid on 14th March of this year, and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take any special action in respect of this Order?

Mr. Silkin: No, Sir. The same question arises. Both of these Orders were not laid before the House, as a result of a misapprehension as to the exact state of the law on the subject, about which there is, if I may say so, still some doubt. No difficulty has arisen and the matter has now been rectified.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take in this connection the action which the Parliamentary Secretary took on Friday, that is to say, to apologise to the House for the error?

Mr. Silkin: Of course, I apologise to the House. I accept the fact that it is a serious matter not to comply with the procedure required, but the question was whether any serious consequences had arisen, and the answer is "No."

RAW COTTON (CENTRALISED PURCHASES)

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I will, with the permission of the House, make a statement on the future arrangements for the


purchase of raw cotton. The Government have given careful and prolonged consideration to this matter and have now reached a decision. The question of centralised purchase of materials as a permanent peacetime measure has to be considered, case by case, in the light of the special circumstances, and cannot be decided upon any preconceived theoretical basis. In the case of cotton, the Government have reached the conclusion that centralised purchase is the best method by which this country can secure its requirements of raw cotton, and that such an arrangement will be in the best interests both of the nation and of the cotton industry. It is unlikely that postwar international conditions will in any event favour the operation of a cotton futures market of prewar type, and the Government are satisfied that centralised purchase, which has been operated successfully during the war, will in the future enable the supplies of cotton required by this country to be obtained at least as economically as by private importation and with greater certainty and regularity. It will also facilitate the maintenance of reasonable stability of price to the spinner and the operation of the measures of price stabilisationof utility cloth, which are an important element in the cost of living policy.
The Government have accordingly decided to continue the central purchase of cotton by the Cotton Control, in preparation for the establishment of a permanent cotton purchasing commission working in close contact with the spinning industry. The cover scheme now operated by the Control will be extended and will afford to the spinner the assurance of stable prices of cotton from the moment when he contracts to sell the yarn. It will also provide closer cover in respect of particular growths of cotton than was provided by the prewar futures market.

Mr. David Eccles: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that expert opinion is very divided on this point, that many men who have spent their lives in dealing with cotton think we should get it cheaper if there was a futures market, and further, that this would earn more money for this country?

Sir S. Cripps: Yes, Sir. That is why the Government gave the matter long and careful consideration. They were aware that there was a great division of opinion

and they have concluded that their decision now is the right one.

Mr. Eden: It is very gratifying to know that the Government have given the matter prolonged and careful consideration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not mind if we also give his statement a certain consideration and may have to ask for the opportunity to debate it.

FILM INDUSTRY(MONOPOLY TENDENCIES)

Sir S. Cripps: I would like, with the permission of the House, to make a statement about the action I propose to take on the Report on tendencies to monopoly in the cinematograph film industry. One consideration which I have had to bear prominently in mind has been the fact that the Cinematograph Films Act, 1938,is due to expire in 1948. Comprehensive legislation dealing with film problems will, therefore, need to be introduced before the time when the Act expires. Adequate safeguards on several points which are stressed in the Report are furnished in the meantime by existing undertakings given by Mr. J. Arthur Rank and by the chief shareholders of the Associated British Picture Corporation Limited. These undertakings freeze the status quo as respects the control of the major vertical combines, preclude any unauthorised expansion of any of the three major circuits and prevent Mr. Rank's organisation from acquiring control of additional studios. An opportunity for more formal and more permanent measures to take care of these points, in so far as further measures may be necessary, will be afforded by the new legislation.
In the meantime, however, I am impressed by the fact that, owing to the number of cinemas which the three major circuits control, particularly in the Greater London area, a booking by one of these circuits is now virtually indispensable to the successful exploitation in this country of any major British film. Iconsider that this situation is fraught with hazards to independent film production, and, in order to minimise these hazards without disturbing existing cinema holdings at a time when cinema values reflect the high recent levels of attendances, I have decided to seek undertakings that the three major circuits will allot a portion of their


screen time to the films of independent British producers as an addition to the amount of screen time which they must alread allocate to British films under the 1938 Act. The selection of films for this purpose will rest in the hands of an independent Board to be appointed by myself. I have not finally settled the composition of the Board but it seems clear to me that it should include representatives of the circuits and that a proportion of its members should be drawn from outside the industry I am glad to say that both Mr. Rank and the Board of the Associated British Picture Corporation have expressed their willingness to co-operate in the formulation of such a scheme, and precise undertakings are now being worked out.
The Report also expressed concern with respect to a number of trade practices, which are now and have for a long time past been current in the industry, and recommended the establishment of a tribunal with wide powers of compulsory arbitration in cases of dispute between the industry's different sections. All interested sections of the industry have expressed their opposition to this proposal, but at the same time all have expressed their willingness to have recourse to unofficial arbitration on a voluntary basis in connection with disputes over trade practices which cannot be compromised by negotiation. I understand further that a Joint Consultative Committee of renters and exhibitors has already been set up and has made substantial progress on the difficult question of "barring" clauses in exhibition contracts. I believe, therefore, that thetribunal proposal in the form in which it was put forward would impede the ordinary day to day business between producer, renter and exhibitor, and I have accordingly decided not to adopt this particular recommendation at the present time It will, however, be the duty of the new independent Board to ensure a fair deal for the independent producers and to this extent the primary object of the tribunal proposal will be met.

Mr. W. Shepherd: May I ask why it is necessary to set up a Board to select the films? Why cannot they be selected by the exhibitors themselves?

Sir S. Cripps: Because as far as the three circuits axe concerned, they desire,

as we do, that there should be an independent body to deal with the matter.

Colonel Ropner: Does the right hon. Gentleman ask us to understand that he is backing free enterprise, and healthy competition in this industry?

Mr. Speaker: That does not arise.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Will the Board have, as it were, terms of reference? Will they select films on their artistic merits, or on what basis?

Sir S. Cripps: Presumably a Board on which the exhibitors are represented will select films from the point of view of returns in the cinemas and the general value and quality of British films

Colonel Ropner: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could you make clear, with great respect, why my question is ruled out of Order? I understood that the whole point of the statement we have just heard was to assist the industry. I am not clear why my question was ruled out of Order.

Mr. Speaker: Personally Ithought it a little wide and a little irrelevant. I commend to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the evidence given by the acting Leader of the Opposition on supplementary questions, which I have found very helpful. I recommend hon. Members to study this.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: I do not quite understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman compared this new agreement with regard to the films of independent producers with that of the quota that they have already under the Act Of course, under the existing Act they have to allot a certain amount of their time to British films, but they are entirely free to choose which British films. I cannot see why the same thing was not adopted here

Sir S. Cripps: The reason was that both the representatives of the circuits and we ourselves thought it would be looked upon by the independents as being a fairer deal than if they were left in the hands of the circuits, certain of whom, they might feel, might not like particular independents and would not show their films. In view of this, it was considered desirable that there should be some independent body.

Mr. A. Lewis: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend whether he would favourably consider having the Workers' Film Association represented? Also, may I ask whether it is his intention that the appropriate film trade unions should be represented on the Board, and that they should be drawn into consultation?

Sir S. Cripps: I do not expect to have any representative people on the Board at all. The Board will be selected of people suitable for its purpose.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Orders of the Day — STRAITS SETTLEMENTS (REPEAL) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major Milner in the Chair]

CLAUSE i.—(Division of Straits Settlements, 29 & 30 Vict. c. 115.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.32 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: There is one point in connection with the Clause, which I hope the Under-Secretary of State will be able to clear up for me, and that is with regard to the future status of the Island of Penang. On the Second Reading, the hon. Member used these words:
 There is no desire under the civil administration for the status of that port to be changed."—[Official Report, 8th March, 1946; Vol. 420, c. 726.]
What does that statement mean, exactly? Does it mean that Penang can remain a free port, or is it to come into the customs union of the mainland? I need not remind the hon. Gentleman that Penang has very largely developed itself because it has been a free port. It is true that it has not the same amount of entrepreneur trade as Singapore, but nevertheless a very large part of its trade is due to the fact that it has been the centre for the distribution of goods, not only in the Malay Pensinsula but also in the Dutch East Indies and Siam. Is that status to continue?
I need also hardly remind the hon. Gentleman that there has been considerable protest in Penang with regard to this point. I believe he has already received a petition from the Chinese and Indian Chambers of Commerce. I would like to quote a sentence from the document. It is:
 These two Chambers of Commerce submit that if the free port facilities of Penang Island should be withdrawn through the formation of


the Malayan Union, the status of Penang will most likely be reduced to that of a fishing village, as Sir Francis Light found it in 1786.
What are the intentions of the Government with regard to this point? Are they proposing to take any steps to find out what local opinion is on the subject? I think Iam right in saying that when Sir Harold MacMichaelwent to Malaya he did not even touch at Penang; so it is no use pretending there has been any consultation on the subject. Various bodies in Penang should have been consulted. There are the three Chambers of Commerce, Chinese, Indian and European. There is also the municipality, and members of the Legislative Council. Ishould like to ask the Under-Secretary whether he meant what he said at the time of the Second Reading Debate, or what, in fact, is to be the status of Penang as a free port.

3.36 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Donner (Basing-stoke): I should like to ask the Undersecretary of State to tell the Committee the position of the Chinese in respect of Malayan citizenship. Have the Government made any approach to the Government of China to ask whether the Chinese in Malaya will be allowed to divest themselves of their Chinese allegiance? If so, what answer have the Government received? The Minister will no doubt remember more fully than I do the incident which took place about five or six years ago in which anumber of Chinese jurists in Singapore were considered suitable for promotion as judges. In that capacity they would have had to judge British, Malays, Indians as well as Chinese, in Malaya. The Colonial Office, if I remember rightly, requested the Foreign Office to approach Chungking for permission for this small number of people to be allowed to divest themselves of their Chinese nationality and their Chinese allegiance. That request was refused. That being so, it is pertinent to ask what is the positionin regard to the large number of Chinese now in Malaya, who are expected to adopt Malayan citizenship? Have the Government made inquiries whether these Chinese will be allowed to divest themselves of their allegiance to China? If the Government have notreceived that permission from Chungking, the whole of the proposals relating to Malayan Union citizenship becomes dangerous nonsense. We

are surely entitled to receive an unequivocal assurance with regard to this matter. If permission has not been obtained from Chungking, added force is given to my suggestion on the Second Reading, that a Royal Commission of the standing, status, and capacity of the Simon Commission should be sent out.

3.39 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I do not wish to carry further the question about citizenship, though I hope it will be in Order to have the matter explained to us further and to ask more questions about it on the Third Reading. I hope that it is in Order on the Clause, where it seems to me to come most appropriately, to ask what is to be the juridical status of the proposed Union. So far as I can gather from reading the White Paper and associated documents, which I am bound to say seem to be very ill-drafted, and well below the level of such documents, the matter has not yet received any very clear consideration. I should like to know whether the proposed Union is intended to be a protected State, or a Crown Colony, or something between the two, or a little of both, or something else. That point remains dubious in the papers—unless it is possible to read the papers far more per-spicaciously than Ihave managed to do. Before we part from the Clause, consideration should be given to the point that unless the new arrangement can be brought easily and precisely within an already well-defined category, it must ' be abandoned. I do not think that so strict an argument as that would be fair, but there should be some indication of what kind of juridical nature the Malayan Union is to have. I am bound to say that it seems to me to be a reflection upon the Minister in charge that that has not been made clear sooner, and I do not think we ought to pass this stage of the Bill without having some further explanation.

3.41 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I feel that an apology is due to the Committee for the continued absence, through indisposition, of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, but I have worked in complete harmony with him and the Government in regard to this matter, and I hope I shall have the continued indulgence of the


Committee in trying to deal with some of the problems before it. Iwould also express to the Committee our thanks for the very helpful criticism and suggestions which have been forthcoming during the past few weeks in regard to this matter. We have profited quite a lot from the criticisms and suggestions made, and I hope that we are now reaching a point at which our proposals will have the general assent of the Committee.
Before I answer theseveral questions which have been addressed to me, I feel that it would be fair to the Committee if I made a statement in regard to the nature of the Order which is referred to in Clause I. This question has aroused considerable interest, and in view of the criticisms made on the Second Reading, and by the Sultans themselves and others, it is important, I think, that the Committee should now have a clear idea of what is proposed in the Order. Now because of the importance of the statement which I want to make I hope the Committee will permit me, for the sake of accuracy, to follow some very close notes which I have prepared on this matter.
In the Second Reading Debate the Government were urged to proceed only with those parts of the Orders in Council which are strictly necessary to enable civil government in Malaya to be restored, and that all the more detailed conditions of the Orders should be deleted, with a view to the matters covered in these provisions being decided at a later date after local consultations have taken place. I announced at the conclusion of the Debate that the Government had decided to defer the Order dealing with Malayan Union citizenship, and that certain criticisms and proposals concerning the establishment of the Malayan Union would be studied. I also made it clear that there was practically no difference in reaching agreement on all religious matters —

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to interrupt but I think the hon. Gentleman said "difference" when he meant "difficulty.'' I think we ought to be quite clear on that.
Mr. Creech Jones: I should have said "there was practically no difficulty," I beg pardon. I must say again that the Government cannot abandon the basic principle of common citizenship, that is to say, the basic principle which demands

that political rights in the Malayan Union should be extended to all those who regard Malaya as their real home, and as the object of their loyalty. It is appreciated, however, that the Government proposal on this subject has not been fully understood in Malaya, and has caused, among sections of Malays, some feeling of anxiety. The Government have in mind the long friendship which has existed betwen the Malay and British people, and are desirous that this alarm, however ill-founded,should be dispelled. During the period before the issue of the Order, steps will be taken to explain the proposals throughout Malaya and to consult the views of all interested communities in the Peninsula. As regards the Malayan Union proposals, the Committee are already aware of the modification which will altogether remove the Governor from the sphere of Mohammedan religious legislation.
The following further modifications have also been decided upon:
First, the Council of Sultans, apart from exercising its religious functions, may discuss secular matters, without the prior consent of the Governor, it being clearly understood that this Council, again apart from its religious functions, is a purely advisory body, which cannot legislate or enjoy executive functions.
Secondly, the Sultans Advisory Councils which will be set up in each State will be empowered to advise the Sultans not only on all matters which affect Mohammedan religion in the State, but on other matters on which the Sultan in his discretion may seek their advice. The Sultans will have absolute discretion in choosing the members of these Councils.
Thirdly, the Governor who is to consult with local opinion concerning the numbers of members and details of representation on the States' Councils will be directed to ensure that one member of each of these Councils shall be a nominee of the Sultan. It will be the duty of this nominee to keep the Sultan informed of State Council proceedings, and to express on the Council any points which the Sultan mayparticularly wish to make. The suggestion that the Sultans should actually preside over the State Councils has been carefully considered, but it is felt that it is more in keeping with their position as constitutional princes, and, indeed, more in keeping with their prestige


and dignity that they should remain aloof from the Council proceedings.
Fourthly, the Royal Instruction to the Governor of the Malayan Union, will include special instructions to the effect that he must not, without the prior approval of the Secretary of State, assent to any bills likely to evoke racial or religious discrimination.
These modifications go very far, I think, to meet the detailed suggestions made either by the Sultans or in the Second Reading Debate. The Government have concluded, after careful consideration, that it would not be advantageous to delete certain parts of the Order establishing the Malayan Union, because this Order, in its present form, is only intended to be a framework. It leaves for consultation and subsequent decision many of the most important matters relating to the actual machinery of the Union.
First is left the final determination of numbers of members and the details of representation on the Legislative Council. Secondly is left the composition of the State and Settlement Council and, in particular, the method of election of any elected members Thirdly, for consultation in Malaya remains the whole question of the function of these local councils, the importance of which we recognise and their relation to the general legislature.
Now the Government are convinced that it is only by issuing the Order in the framework as described—though certain sections of it will be held in reserve— that the necessary flexibility can be maintained, butunder this arrangement each of the various Councils in the Malayan Union can be called into being whenever the time is ripe. Any alternative arrangement would involve either the preparation of a series of Orders, which would at best be a cumbrous arrangement involving unnecessary delays, or the making of a single subsequent Order, which would mean that those bodies, which can and should be set up almost immediately, must await the completion of local consultation on all points. It is most important, for instance, that the Council of Sultans and the Sultans Advisory Councils should come into existence as rapidly as possible since, without them, there can be no legislation on Mohammedan religious matters, and the

Sultans will have no means to express their collective views to the Governor on others questions. In these circumstances the Government feel confident that the course they have decided to adopt will be found to effect in the most practical way, the helpful suggestions which have been put forward.
I think I can give the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) the assurance he seeks: that Penang will be a free port in the Malayan Union and that the free port facilities will continue. That is our intention. In regard to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner), the whole question of citizenship, and what constitutes citizenship, is now referred to Malaya for consultations with all sections of opinion. From the point of view of the Government, the- matter will be most thoroughly explored, so that all points raised in the discussion on Second Reading, and by the Sultans, will be most carefully considered before any Order is drafted. Some months are likely to elapse before the drafting of an Order is possible. Many of the questions which have been raised in discussion have been considered by the Government, but I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the Government will reach no final conclusions until the exploration has been thoroughly exhausted in Malaya itself, and until further inquiries necessitated by the queries raised by hon. Members have been further considered.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: Could the Minister tell us what form this inquiry is to take? Is it intended that a Mission should be sent out there?

Mr. Creech Jones: I made the statement on Second Reading that it was the intention of the Government to instruct the Governors to consult all sections of opinion in Malaya upon these matters. I also undertook to say that the Government would examine all the points which had been raised on questions of citizenship, including the question by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke in regard to the difficulties of Chinese citizenship. All these matters would be subject to further discussion before which no decision would be come to.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is


important we should be quite clear on this. The position now is that the Government introduced the Bill and published a White Paper without making any approach whatever to the Chinese Government in Chungking on the point as to whether the Chinese in Malaya would or would not owe allegiance to China.

Mr. Creech Jones: That must not be understood at all. Before the Bill was introduced, the most careful inquiries were made in all directions; the whole problem of citizenship was carefully explored, and the Government reached certain conclusions. In the light of criticisms made, and the desire of the Committee that there should be further exploration of these problems and that local opinion in Malaya should be further consulted, the Government, whatever their own views may be now, have decided that the matter shall be further deferred in order that these discussions should proceed.

Squadron-Leader Donner: No approach was made to Chungking?

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. and gallant Member has no right to assume that.

Squadron-Leader Donner: In that case, when was it done, and what is the answer?

Mr. Creech Jones: The hon. and gallant Member has no right to assume that the Government have not made the most careful inquiries into the whole question of Chinese citizenship. Indeed, most exhaustive inquiries have been made in various directions on the whole problem. There, I must leaveit, for the time being.

Mr. Gammans: Do I understand that when the Governor has had these consultations with the people of Malaya the Order in Council which will bring these further matters into legality, will be laid before the House in a form in which the subject will be debatable? Can we have an assurance that that will be done?

Mr. Creech Jones: The Government, in their anxiety that the House should be informed on the contents of the Orders in Council, did an unprecedented thing in presenting a White Paper containing a precis of the Orders in Council. The Orders in Council relating to the problem of common citizenship will obviously not now be proceeded with, for the reasons

I have already mentioned. But it will be possible when these discussions come to an end for the facts to be brought to the notice of the House, and I will give an undertaking to that effect. The form in which the information can be conveyed to hon. Members must be worked out because the form hitherto adopted raises certain constitutional difficulties. There is no desire on our part not to convey to the House the fullest information. When these discussions are finished the statement will be made, and the House will have the fullest opportunities of considering it.

Mr. Wilson Harris: The Minister has said that he has no desire to preclude the fullest information from the Committee. But he has also said that this and that "must not be assumed." I understood the hon, and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) to put a direct question on whether there had been discussion with the Chinese Government on this question of citizenship. Could the Minister not give a direct answer?

Mr. Creech Jones: I am not in a position today to give a full answer tothe question. The matter was fully explored by the Government. When the whole question of citizenship is before the House, whatever the result of the discussions, the House will have an opportunity of expressing itself upon it. But for the moment, it must not be assumed that these inquiries have not taken place.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Stanley: Iam glad that the hon. Gentleman has paid attention to the very widespread anxiety which was expressed on this matter during the Second Reading Debate. It was, he will agree, a discussion which did not proceed at all on party lines but which did disclose, on all sides of the House, considerable anxiety with regard to the way in which these proposals had been introduced. I agree —in fact I made the suggestion at the time—that if any further inquiries were to be carried out, a Royal Commission was not a proper medium for doing it, but that it fell clearly within the province of those very distinguished gentlemen who have recently been appointed, the Governor-General and Governor of Malaya and Singapore respectively. I gather it is now the decision of His Majesty's


Government that, at any rate on the details of these various schemes, there will now be a period for consultation and discussion.
The matter falls under three heads. First, there is this question of common citizenship. There the hon. Gentleman has told us that the Order in Council will be postponed. He said that the Government adhered to the principle of a common citizenship forthose who really desired to make their homes in Malaya. Everyone in the Committee is agreed on that as a principle, I think, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that there is a considerable amount of difference on what constitutes and what proves a genuine desire to make Malaya one's home. The sort of point which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) has raised today is, to many of us, a matter of deep importance. I am, therefore, assuming that this delay in bringing in the Order in Council is not merely for the purpose of explaining the matter to the Malays, but for the purpose also of consulting with them, and, if necessary, amending the details of these proposals, in order to meet views which they express, and with which the Government find themselves in agreement. It seems to me essential, on a matter of this kind, to which so many of us attach importance, that there should be an opportunity, when these consultations have taken place, and before the final Order in Council is brought into effect, for a further discussion in this House I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given what I understand to be a firm pledge that whatever the form—and I understand the constitutional difficulties which are always introduced by Orders in Council—this House will be given a chance of further discussion before the Orders dealing with common citizenship are brought into effect. So much for the question of common citizenship.
With regard to the religious part, we are all pleased to hear that the hon. Gentleman has, to a large extent, met the various detailed points raised in the Debate. I was sorry he was not able to meet the point I put as to the Sultan presiding in the State Council. In view of the fact that he has turned that down on the ground that it would not be in the best interests of the Sultans themselves,

that it would be in some way harmful to their prestige, I hoped, that he might say that if they do not take that view, that if they think it would helptheir prestige, and their tradition, he would reconsider that point.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman has dealt with the measures required to bring into effect a general union of Malaya. He has told us that the Order in Council which he is now to introduce will be limited to the general framework, that it will merely set up these bodies, without defining in any way what they are to consist of, or what their powers are to be. If that is so, I confess that I still cannot see what is the point of including them inthe Order in Council. If there is some technical reason for doing that, I should not object, provided that I could first be given the assurance that there will finally be a new Order in Council, which will set out how, for instance, the Legislative Council is to be composed, what its functions are and what are its methods of election, what the powers of the local councils are to be and how they are to be elected; also that, if and when Orders in Council are prepared which will clothe this framework with flesh and blood, and therefore make it possible for these various bodies to be brought into operation, we shall then have an opportunity, in one form or another, of discussing the Orders in Council and the new machinery which they are to set up. Provided, therefore, that we can be assured that this interval for consultation really gives an opportunity for fresh consideration, not merely of the unimportant details but of some of the most important aspects of this scheme, and that, when that consideration has been completed, the House will have an opportunity once again of discussing the matter, and then of coming to a final decision upon it, I personally am prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's offer.
I believe the fundamentals of the Government scheme to be in the interests not only of Malaya, but in particular, perhaps, in the interests of the Malays. I am, however, concerned not only about the way in which it is done, but about some of the important details of this scheme. I am hopeful that this interval for reflection, for discussion and for explanation will give an opportunity to bring about what we certainly have not got at the moment, the agreement of the


Malays to the new proposals, because in default of that agreement, if this new constitution is to be introduced, not with the good will but in spite of the ill will of the Malays, the future of Malaya is black indeed. I very much hope that, as a result of this new action of the Government, as a result of the time for reflection and discussion, as aresult of what I believe will be found to be inevitable amendments which will have to be made in the scheme, we shall end by getting a scheme which provides for the essential future of Malaya, and which will at the same time, be acceptable to all the communities, who, in future, have to make their home there.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Reid: I am glad that the Government have decided not to proceed at once with the full scheme, and to give time, in regard to the second Order in Council, to let people inMalaya know exactly what is being done before it is done. There is just one point about which I wish to speak, that is, this question of Malayan citizenship. I said in my remarks during the Second Reading Debate that Malayan citizenship should be give to people of every race who were bona fide residents in Malaya. That is a vague term. It was impossible to go into details then. Even a large number of the Malays themselves are recent immigrants. Of course, there are also Chinese immigrants and Indian immigrants.
I would like to impress on my hon. Friend that whatever is laid down to define the franchise, the word "domicile "should be kept out. Any one who knows the history of South Africa, and the trouble about the Indian franchise there over the world "domicile ", will understand what I mean. If I might also instance Ceylon, we have had endless trouble by the insertion of the word domicile "in the case of Indian immigrants there. In the case of domicile it has to be decided whether a man is entitled to vote or not, by the intention in his mind, that is to say, whether he has an animus manendi or an animus revertendi, to use the legal terms. A man might say that it is his intention to remain in Malaya, that it is not his intention to return, say, to India or China, and no one can gainsay him. He then gets the vote, though he might have been resident in Malaya for a period of only

three weeks. So, I beg my hon. Friend to keep the word" domicile "out of the franchise law.

4.10 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I rise for one purpose only, that is, to give the Under-Secretary an opportunity of clearing up a misapprehension which he certainly left in my mind, and perhaps in the minds of other hon. Members, when replying to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basing-stoke (Squadron-Leader Donner). My hon. and gallant Friend asked the Minister whether an approach had been made to the Government of the Chinese Republic with respect to giving permission for the dropping of Chinese citizenship by the Chinese concerned. As I understood the Under-Secretary, he said that my hon. and gallant Friend must not assume that no approach had been made. That is a somewhat negative reply and it certainly left in my mind the impression that the Minister was not prepared to say, affirmatively, that an approach had been made. It is obviously undesirable that there should be any misunderstanding on this matter. Therefore, I say with respect to the Under-Secretary that the question is susceptible of a monosyllabic answer, "Yes" or "No ". He could add, if he cared to, particulars of the occasion and time at which the request was made and, possibly, the answer.

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am sorry to stand between the Committee and the hornpipes and shanties for which some of them are, no doubt, impatient, but I think the Minister ought to be invited to take his courage in both feet and advance a little further from his brief. If I may ask him to listen to me this time, because I gather he did not listen to me last time, it I may judge from the fact that he made no reference at all to my question —

Mr. Creech Jones: I am coming to it.

Mr. Pickthorn: Very well, but there might have been some reference to it before, without damage. Now I propose to elaborate it. The question I wish to put is this: What is the suggested juridical situation of the proposed Malayan Union? As far as can be made out from the documents hitherto published, some of them speak of it as if it were a Crown Colony, some as if it were to become a Dominion,


some as if it were to be protected territory, and some with ambiguity between two or more of those possibilities. I do not think that the Committee ought to depart from this Clause without understanding what is the official intention in the matter. I am confirmed in that opinion by what appears to me to be the ambiguity—here I speak very diffidently, not being learned in the law—or rather, more than the ambiguity, the obscurity of the use both of the word "citizenship" and of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. I do not think "citizenship" is a word with which our law has grappled, as it has with "nationality" or very unfortunately, as I agree with the hon. Gentleman opposite, with the word "domicile." It is very difficult for us to know what is meant by "citizenship."
The Foreign Jurisdiction Act appears to be referred. to in this document—I apologise if I am wrong—sometimes on the assumption that these territories are British territories, for instance for the purpose of giving titles to land and sometimes as if it were to be applied to these territories as though they were not British territories but protected territories. If I am right in thinking that the document is susceptible of that explanation, then there is an apparent incompatibility between these two ways of referring to this Act. I do not think that this, the supreme Legislature for this purpose, ought to pass from this Clause of the Bill, without having a clear explanation on that matter

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Berry: Ionly wish to trouble the Committee on two points. The first is with reference to the view which has been expressed that whatever is done should be done with the consent of the Malays themselves. That will be a very big step forward compared with the situation prior to the fall of Singapore. I think it necessary to have a new conception of these things, otherwise, all the plans that are being made beforehand are doomed to failure. The second point arises out of the questior put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner). We do not want to have a situation arising in Malaya similar to that which arose under the Delbruck law prior to the last war, when the German Government decided that a man might become a citizen of

another country and still retain his German citizenship. I think it is necessary, in determining Malayan citizenship, to make it clear beyond the risk of perad-venture, that a man is a genuine citizen of Malaya and does not cany citizenship of another country as well Otherwise, it would not be beyond the wit of man to flood Malaya with citizens of various countries. For the purpose of peace, I think those countries had better be nameless. If that were done, elections or other public matters could be influenced. I suggest to my hon. Friend that every care should be taken to see there is no possibility of a repetition of the Delbruck law operating in Malaya.

4.17 p.m.

Captain Sir Peter Macdonald: I was very glad to hear the Minister's statement to the effect that all these contentious points which were raised in our recent Debates, and the fears then expressed, have received his attention and consideration. We were very much alarmed on the last occasion at the storm raised by the Sultans, and the repercussions caused by the mishandling of the situation by the Government in rushing these proposals through without consultation on the spot. I am still rather vague on the question of how these consultations are to take place. Though my friends may not agree with me this time, I, personally, would prefer a Royal Commission to investigate all the problems—and there are many—that ought to be considered before this Measure is carried to its final conclusion. From the outset I have been in favour of the general framework of the scheme. I think it essential for the future of Malaya and the Malays that some scheme of this kind should be carried out. I appreciate also the necessity for rushing the matter,because the military government should come to an end as soon as possible. I saw statements in the Press during the week-end with regard to the Sultans being called for consultation. I should like to know if that is to be the case.
I should also like to know what is to be the position of Malayan balances that we hold in this country. Are they to be used for compensation to the rubbeplanters, or to the investors in this country, or are they to be confiscated by the Government? We have had no indication whatsoever, so far, whether the title deeds


of these balances are to be handed over. With regard to this question of citizenship and franchise, I think it is fraught with very serious difficulties. I do not agree with the view advanced by the Minister onthis matter. When it comes to a question of citizenship and franchise, I think we are going to have the same troubles as those we had in places like Ceylon, where we had to send out a Franchise Commission to report on the matter. We only had one problem and that was resolved, not with agreement of everybody because of the minorities concerned, but I think myself it was settled in the right way by the report of the Commission. Now we are going to have the same problem with regard to minorities. The questionof citizenship is going to be the chief problem. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Squadron-Leader Donner) raised a very important point, which has always been a difficult one regarding the Chinese settlers in Malay, the question of dual nationality.
I contend that, before any Chinese, or Indian, for that matter, is given Malayan citizenship, he should forswear any allegiance to any other authority, and should swear an oath to the King. I am not going into further details at this stage, but I would like a reply to the question I have asked about balances in this country and I hope the hon. Gentleman will give me a reply. I would also like to know if it is true that Mr. Jinnah was invited, and whether there will be further consultationsat home before any final decision regarding the details within the framework of this scheme is reached.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Gammans: The hon. Gentleman has gone a good way to satisfy those of us on this side of the Committee, or, I think, in any part of the Committee, who were very anxious indeed at the end of the Second Reading Debate. We would have preferred a longer interval between the Second and Third Readings, so that we might have had an opportunity of assessing the reaction of public opinion in Malaya, topoints brought out in the Second Reading Debate, but I understand the constitutional difficulty and I think the hon. Gentleman has gone a good way to meet us. I think it absolutely essential now, unless there is to be a risk of further misunderstanding later, that we should understand what we have agreed

today. We have agreed, I think, and the hon. Gentleman has given us an assurance, that further Orders in Council will be debatable in some form in this House, and the hon. Gentleman has answered verysatisfactorily my point with regard to Penang, but I want this to be made quite clear.
The hon. Gentleman says that the question of Malayan citizenship can still be discussed with the Sultans and others in Malaya. I hope that, when he said that, he meant what I think he meant—which is not merely that the details of that scheme can be discussed, but the whole principle. I do not think the Malays should ever accept a form of Malayan Union citizenship which did not compel all non-Malay races to take an oath of allegiance to the King, and the rulers, and thereby forswear any allegiance to any other country. If that is a matter which is still discussable, as my right hon. Friend suggests, I am happy on that point, but there is a further point arising outof it. If that matter is still discussable, do the Government propose to apply straightaway the Foreign Jurisdiction Act to Malaya? I must remind the hon. Gentleman that the treaties signed by the various Sultans, which gave to His Majesty's Government rights under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, have been questioned—in one case as to their actual legality. In the case of Johore, the actual legality of that signature has been questioned because the Sultan signed without his State Council As to other States, the propriety of the way in which they signed has also been questioned. I hope the hon. Gentleman, when he replies, will tell the House whether, in fact, any Orders in Council which refer to the Foreign Jurisdiction Act are to be applied now or not.
I hope we have understood another matter aright, and that it is still a matter for discussion between His Majesty's Government and the rulers whether or not the Sultans shall have any different relationship to the new central Legislature which it is proposed to set up. Under the present proposals, the Sultans, to all intents and purposes, are to have no authority whatever. Can they still raise the question of having greater authority, or is the matter now closed? I hope that further discussions may take place on the powers of the State Councils, because if there is one matter on which the Malays are


more anxious than another it is that the control and alienation of land shall remain with the State Councils, and if that can be retained, as it is now, it would go a very long way towards satisfying their susceptibilities.
One other point raised in the Second Reading Debate and mentioned today is that, in the proposal which has been outlined today, the Governor has certain reserve powers to safeguard fundamental Malay rights. That, I think, is a great advance, and I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having accepted it. There is one other matter which I think will have to be referred to sooner or later, and that is the educational policy which it is proposed to follow, because, if we are going to try to create a sense of common citizenship, it must start, fundamentally, in the schools. The Chinese or Indians, or any other immigrant races, cannot have it both ways. They expect to be given equal rights with Malays, but every other country in the world where there is a multilateral civilisation, has, I think, started with the schools. I want to ask whether that important question can still be considered in these further negotiations.
I am very glad the hon. Gentleman has gone a very long way to meet us, but it is most unfortunate that all this has happened because the two aims which the Government have in view are supported, not only by all parties in this House, but also by all communities in Malaya. But we must face the fact that a lot of damage has already been done. We have succeeded in driving a wedge between the Malay rulers and their people. We have created greater racial friction than has ever existed in that country before, and we have laid the British Government open to charges—I will not say of bad faith—but certainly of smart business which have never been levelled against us before. I hope sincerely that the statement which the hon. Gentleman has made, and the further assurances which I hope he will still give to the Committee on those specific points raised by my hon. Friends and myself, will very largely dispel that bad atmosphere and allow these negotiations to go forward in that spirit of complete loyalty between the Malayan rulers, their peoples and the British Crown which has hitherto existed and without

which no scheme of federation, such as we all want, can possibly ever succeed.

4.29 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Donner: I appreciate the conciliatory tone of the Under-Secretary, and I agree with the hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) that the hon. Gentleman has tried to go a very long way towards meeting us. At the same time, he will forgive me if I say that I cannot escape the conclusion that, in point of fact, the WhitePaper was published and the Bill brought before the House without any approach being made by the Government to Chungking. I cannot escape the conclusion that if, in fact, any such approach had been made, the Government would have been perfectly willing totell us that it was made, the date on which it was made, and the nature of the answer, and, that being so, I must say that I regret the handling of this whole situation by the Government. I would feel happier if I could persuade some of my hon. Friends torecord their misgivings and register in the Lobby, as well as by speeches, their protest at the handling of this situation by the Government. Without going back to the argument which we had on the Second Reading, this Clause which is the essence of the Bill deprives the Malay rulers of their sovereignty, in which is juridically constituted the only guarantee and safe-guard of the whole Malay race. I cannot help feeling, in these circumstances, that those of us who feel unhappy about the handling of this whole matter, should vote against this Clause.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. Gallacher: After listening to the remarks that have been made by hon. Members opposite, I am sure it is necessary to say a word or two in connection with Malaya. It is very bad and verysad that we should have hon. Members, such as the two previous speakers, complimenting the Minister on the fact that he has gone a good way to meet them. That is not progress forward; it is progress backward. The hon. Member for Hornsey (Mr. Gammans) saidthat the Chinese and the Indians could not have it both ways, and that they could not have the same rights as the Malayans without accepting responsibility. I was not aware that the Malays had any rights, and I cannot see that there are any rights for them in this Bill. Nobody can tell


me that this Bill is a model of democracy. These people are divided up by Orders in Council, or by laws to be promulgated by Orders in Council. Hon. Members on both sides have talked about the Indians and Chinese having dual nationality. That was not the trouble in Malaya. Sir George —I cannot recall the name, but he was one of the chiefs of the Civil Service of Malaya.

Mr. Oliver Poole: Try "Maxwell."
Mr. Gallaeher: If hon. Members have read the book written by Sir George Maxwell, I cannot understand them speaking as they have spoken this afternoon. In his book Sir George makes it clear that when the attack was made upon Malaya, the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians had no rights whatever other than to sit down and keep quiet. They had no right to defend their own land, and the conditions that obtained were responsible for what happened and for the suffering, the deaths and the mutilations that occurred all the way down to Singapore. The small British garrisons there were the only people capable of meeting and dealing with the Japanese. The inhabitants were told to behave themselves and sit quiet and that they had nothing to do with it. The outstanding thing was the way they acted, despite the fact that they had been so badly treated. Is it necessary to tell hon. Members of this Committee that the white man in Malaya was a separate and superior member of the master race and that the Malayans, the Chinese and the Indians were treated alike? There was no question of the white man differentiating between them. If we are to learn the lesson of what happened in Malaya, and apply it, we should give real rights to the people of that area—Chinese and Indians as well as Malayans—and give them the opportunity to express themselves, to build up their country and to build up their manhood and womanhood as responsible citizens, and not as people to be played with by British administrators. This Bill is merely continuing what has happened in the past, and I feel it necessary that something of this sort should be said.
I again ask hon. Members to read Sir George Maxwell's book, which is a simple, factual history of events right through Malaya, from Penang up to the collapse of Singapore. Having read it, I ask them

to get rid of the hypocrisy which we have heard expressed from the other side, that it is necessary for them, being superior individuals, to look after Malays, Chinese and Indians because those people are in-capable of looking after themelves. I can imagine hon. Members opposite making reservations and saying, "We, on the Tory side, were born as a race of rulers or, if not born as a race of rulers, we managed to creep in with those who considered they were the race of rulers. We, who are somuch superior to the representatives of the proletariat, have the God-given mission to look after inferior races." They have always talked about "inferior races," and there is no question about the fact that they have treated those races as infants. For along time they adopted the same attitude towards the people of this country. But the people of this country are now on their feet, and it will not be long before the ruling Glasses are off theirs. It is simply arrogant presumption which causes them to adopt the attitude that, somehow or other, God has chosen them to be the superiors of the peoples of the East. If the peoples of the East—the Malays, the Chinese and the Indians—get the opportunity to develop their own country, we shall get better conditions in Malaya, than we can get through a Bill of this kind.

4.39 p.m.

Sir Arnold Gridley: I think the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallaeher) has not only not read his Maxwell, but, also, has not studied the past history of Malaya, because it is not so long ago since the Malays in their various States were fighting against one another and piracy was rampant in the Malacca Straits. It was at the request of the Malayan rulers—or some of them, at any rate—that we took over the control of that country and shared with them a better form of government. That is why we are there today.
Passing from that, I want to say a word or two about the question of Malayan citizenship. I have twice visited the Malay States and stayed in the country for several months on each occasion. The first thing that struck me about that country was that it was the happiest part of our Colonial Empire in which it had ever been my good fortune to stay on prolonged visits. There was no question


of either the Malays, Chinese or Tamils wanting to have anything to do with self-government. They were perfectly happy as they were. One interesting incident happened to my son, who has been for many years in the Malayan Civil Service and who, after being a prisoner in Japanese hands for three and a half years, got his release. With others he left the prison camp to walk into Singapore, surrounded by thousands of cheering Malays and Chinese. The burden of their rejoicing was this: "Come back and govern us as you did before. We in this country knew then what real peace and happiness were, and the sooner you get back and take control again the better." I ask the Committee, is that not much better testimony than the sort of nonsense we have heard from the hon. Member for West Fife?
There is this danger. We are all anxious to see the Malays given every right in their own country, but there is a danger, which we must be careful to avoid, in dealing with the Chinese. The Chinese in Malaya are a race who have done the bulk of the hard work in the country. They are first-class mechanics and good in civil engineering, whereas the Malay native likes to lead an easier life. He will drive a car, operate a lift, or do a little gardening or something of that sort, but he does not like much physical exertion. He is one of nature's gentlemen. We have the third influx—the Tamils—who have come over on contracts for two or three years, to work on rubber estates, make a bit of money and go back again, and, perhaps, in a year or two renew their contracts. But what did the Chinese do? I was astonished the last time I was there, when staying in Singapore, to see at one quay ships coming in with loads of Chinese, and at the other quay ships 'going out with Chinese returning to their own land from Malaya. I could not understand this at all. It was a time when there was a slump. What has always been behind this Chinese immigration and emigration is that, when times were bad in China, a great many wanted to go toa rich country like Malaya, where they could earn big money and stay there for two, three or four years, accumulate what they thought was sufficient for the time being, and then go back to their own country. There were, of course, a number of Chinese capitalists who, years ago, invested their

money in the country and accumulated considerable wealth, and some of them have made the country their residence for life.
There may be a great change in the future. We all hope China will become a prosperous country, and if she does, there may not be this desire on the part of the Chinese to go into Malaya. I hope when these consultations take place in Malaya to decide the basis of citizenship, very careful consideration will be given primarily to the arguments put forward by the Malays themselves. After all, it is their country; they have no desire to keep other people out, but they do not want to run the risk of being overruled by races whom they look upon as aliens.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Creech Jones: I feel it necessary, at the outset, completely to repudiate any criticism that has been made of the manner in which the Government have handled this particular problem. I do not accept the criticisms which have been made in various parts of the Committee, in the Press and elsewhere, as to the "unseemly haste" which the Government have shown, and the "unfortunate manner" in which they have tried to secure a verdict on this broad policy. There has been no attempt at "smart business" as was suggested by the hon. Memberfor Hornsey (Mr. Gammans). On the contrary, every effort has been made to get our proposals widely known, to secure the maximum discussion of them and to find a solution to an admittedly difficult problem, which could only be solved with the general good will of all the people involved in it.
A number of questions have been put to me, which I shall try to answer. So far as I know, no Sultans have been called home. A question was raised a little while ago as to whether facilities could be given to the Sultan of Kedah. Those facilities were made available to him. The Sultan of Johore, of course, is in this country already, but, apart from those two Sultans I know of no general request by the Sultans to come to this country for the purpose of discussing these matters. I was asked about the financial implications of this policy. If the hon. Member who raised the point will turn to the Statement of Policy on the future constitution, published in October, and also to the precis of the proposed Orders in Council, he will find


whole sections in both papers concerned with this problem—the financial issues involved and the question of assets and liabilities—and I do not think when he has read those passages, he will have any undue apprehension as to the policy which the Government propose to follow.

Mr. Pickthorn: Can the hon. Gentleman give us the gist of it?

Mr. Creech Jones: It is not my desire to delay the Committee. There is a whole section which hon. Members have read, and I think it would be a waste of time to read half a page containing several paragraphs of a document which has been in the hands of hon. Members for the last six months.
I come to the question raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). He wanted to know what would be the juridical status of the Malayan Union. The answer is that it would be a Protectorate. The powers of jurisdiction would be ceded under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act. A further question was asked about the making of the Order in Council, and the validity of the Foreign Jurisdiction Act in regard to the Order. It will be appreciated that the Order in Council which has to be made under the Bill, will draw its validity from two Acts of Parliament. So far as the Straits Settlements are concerned, it is the British Settlements Acts, which are involved So far as the Malay States are concerned, it is the Foreign Jurisdiction Act which gives the necessary powers.
A further question was put in regard to educational policy. This Bill is essentially a Bill concerned with the constitutional problems involved, and educational and social policies are matters which obviously would receive the closest examination of the Government in the light of the new conditions in Malaya. Indeed, for some long time educational policy has received very, very careful thought and attention. There is no intention that the Department should abandon the very great interest which it has always taken in this particular aspect of social policy. The hon. Member for Hornsey took a somewhat gloomy view as to the effect in Malaya of the publication of this statement of policy. I do not take that gloomy view, for the reason that the reaction to the policy among Malayans has been to create, for the first time, a Malayan consciousness in regard

to Malayan problems. Today we are witnessing amongst the Malayans the emergence of their own representative people who are voicing their views in regard to government, and demanding that they shall play an effective part in the building up of the life of the Peninsula. We, the Government, welcome the emergence of this new opinion in the body of Malayans, those Malayans who with great loyalty to Britain, and sometimes with great courage and devotion, are prepared to apply their minds and their energies to the work of reconstruction and rehabilitation. If this policy is adopted, I think greater opportunities than ever before will be available to them for finding a way to the solution of many of their problems.
I was asked about the problem of commoncitizenship. Let me repeat the words I used in the earlier part of the Debate on this Clause. I said that the Government cannot abandon the basic principle of common citizenship; that is to say, the basic principle which demands' that political rights in the Malayan Union should be extended to those who regard Malaya as their real home and as the object of their loyalty. Many points have been raised in regard to the interpretation of "citizenship" and what is really meant by "common citizenship." Numerous points have been put regarding relations with other powers, and the interpretation of "citizenship" with respect to China, India and so on. I have no desire to be drawn into these discussions because of the pledge which I have already given the Committee. The whole question of citizenship is one which will be explored very thoroughly by the Government and by the Governors, in consultation with all interests. For the moment I think it wiser that I should give no undertaking to the Committee beyond the one which I have already given.
There is only one other point I wish to make, namely, that in the Order in Council which must be issued a number of immediate matters will obviously have to be attended to. There is not only the question of the appointment ofa Governor and an advisory body, but also the setting up of the Sultans' Advisory Councils in the respective states, the setting up of the central body for the Sultans to advise the Governor, and a body in regard to religious legislation, which will be outside his responsibility.
It will also be necessary to appoint a supreme court, subordinate courts and a chief justice in order that the administration of justice may go on. The Order in Council is essentially a framework; it is a scaffolding around which the other parts of the constitution will be built. I think I have answered most of the points which have been raised and I hope that now the Committee will give us the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

REPORT [7th March]

Resolutions reported:

Navy Estimates, 1946 Numbers

1. "That 490,000 Officers, Seamen, Boys and Royal Marines be employed for the Sea Service together with 2,800 Royal Marine Police, borne on the books of His Majesty's Ships and at the Royal Marine Divisions, for the year ending on the 31st day of March,1947."

VOTE ON ACCOUNT

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £150,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Navy Ser vices which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947."

Navy Supplementary Estimate, 1945

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceed ing £10, be granted to His Majesty to defray the charge which will come in course of pay ment during the year ending on the31st day of March 1946 for "expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Navy Ser vices for the year."

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding.



Supplv Grants
Appro priations in Aid


Vote.
£
£


I. Wages, &amp;c, of Officers and Men of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines and of certain other personnel serving with the Fleet 
 10
50,000,000

First Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

4.59 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I do not. think we should allow a further advance of the authorisation to spend the vast sum mentioned in this Vote on Account without making some comment upon it. I have no complaint about the way in which the original sum was introduced, when we got a lot of information. We have here the advantage of the presence of the First Lord, who I see has already on his travelling suit—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): Iam sorry to interrupt the hon and gallant Member. If he wishes to talk about money, he had better wait till the next Resolution.

Captain Marsden: We are asked now to authorise the expenditure of a great sum of money. Cannot we say anything at all about that now?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It will be in Order on the next Vote.

Question put, and agreed to.

Second Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

5.0 p.m.

Captain Marsden: I am sorry I was a little bit ahead of station. It is difficult to follow the tortuous tracks of this procedure. I am glad the First Lord is here. We know he is to be off tomorrow on a long voyage and that he will be away for a long time, and I wish him luck. The sum involved in this Vote to which I wish to draw attention is very large, greater indeed than the whole Navy Estimates have been for many years, and I think the House should take every opportunity of debating it and bringing forward the numerous points which it was impossible to bring forward in one day at an earlier stage. As a result of our shortened hours, and by reason of the speeches from the Government and Opposition Front Benches, the Private Member gets very little time indeed. Last time we did not get far beyond the question of whether we should sleep in hammocks or not, but there are other things on which I should like to speak.
One of the large sums of money to be expended is for merchant ship construction, which was never touched on by the right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty. The point I wish to make concerns that part of the merchant fleet which comes under the protection of the Admiralty during wartime. When this war started, every merchant ship had to be protected, and in many cases it was very difficult to give the ships adequate protection owing to their construction and age. It was also difficult to know who was to pay for it, but I shall come to that in a moment. What I am trying to explain to the First Lord now is that if in the future all merchant ships are to be protected in time of war, it will save a lot of money and time if all those ships are constructed with a view to protection when war comes. We are not told whether that is to be done. In my humble capacity I would advise that it should be done, and that, in the blueprints which are now being drawn up for the construction of merchant shipping, arrangements should be made so that, when the time comes, it will not be necessary to derange the construction of the ship, and upset the crew's quarters, in order to make room for the guns, the accommodation of the guns' crews, and the necessary magazines. If that is not done much time is wasted and you never get the correct organisation of defence that should exist. I hope, therefore, that the First Lord will be able to say that this work is being done. I am perfectly certain that we can leave the technical side of it to the experienced officers of the Admiralty.
Next is the question, Who is to pay for it? At the beginning of the war very good plans were already in existence for the protection of merchant shipping. I do not think anyone could accuse the Department responsible of not having foreseen practically every eventuality, but what was missing was a decision on who was to pay. We were put in rather a difficulty, because there were one or two merchant ship owners—I would dearly like to name them, but I will not—who preferred that their ships should go to sea unarmed, rather than that they should stand a chance of having to put their hands in their pockets. I will not mention them, because their attitude was not really indicative of that of the vast majority of ship owners, who wanted their ships armed and their crews

protected whatever the cost, even if they had to pay every penny themselves That was the real spirit of the ship owners, and I am glad to be able to say so. So it would be far more satisfactory if the First Lord could say now that, in future, the whole cost of armament, and of the pay of the guns' crews, would be borne by the Admiralty in future wars, as has been done in the past.
I would now like to say a word or two about the pensions of certain officers. I am referring to officers because the particular argument concerns them, though part of it might equally well refer to petty officers also. At the end of the last war a Committee sat under Admiral Jerram and, looking back, it is astonishing to see how accurate the findings of that Committee were. Their recommendations were carried out. To begin with, there was a basic pension for retired officers, which worked up anddown according to the cost of living. As the cost of living went up, the pension went up. As the cost of living went down, the pension went down. Nobody complained of that, and it worked all right, but about 1934 the Government decided that they would stopthis up-and-down arrangement and pay pensions on a definite level. If the cost of living had gone down, that would have been very nice, but, as always happens on these occasions, the cost of living went up. The pensions did not go up, and I would particularly direct the attention of the First Lord and of the Treasury to the fact that, if the Committee's original plans had been carried through up to now, the pension paid to officers would have been practically identical with the pensions which they are now bringing in for the future. I would suggest that the easiest way of giving a fair deal to the officers retired in the past would be to cancel, as from this date, the restrictive regulation of 1934.
There is one little ray of hope. In Command Paper 6750 it is stated:
Consideration is being given, however, to the position of retired officers who have given full-time service in the Armed Forces in the 1939–45 war.
That will not include all the officers, but it will include a very great majority. The men on the lower deck and petty officers received their whole pay and their whole pension during the war, while the officers only received a 25 per cent. addition to their pay and no, pension at all. Why


not wipe out these class distinctions and treat them both the same? The officers are perhaps the hardest people for whom to get complete justice, though they would not use the word "justice" themselves, and the fact remains that life gets harder for them and easier for everyone else. They have no trade union, they would not belong to one if there were one, but they will go on looking to the Admiralty, as they have always done in the past, for a fair deal. The time will come again next month on the Navy Estimates when all these things can be discussed at much greater length, and I hope that by that time some definite decision will have been come to on the few hopeful sentences contained in the Command Paper.
I have only one other point, and that concerns the general construction of the Navy. That, of course, is what everybody would like to know, but so much depends on what other countries have. In the past we have had a White Paper before us with the Estimates showing the strength of the navies' of all other countries and the existing strength of our own Navy. On that basis we have been able to make suggestions, and on occasion have in fact insisted that our Navy should be built up to an adequate strength. Now we have not got those figures, we do not know what any other country has, except that we hope that Japan and Germany have no navy at all. Apart from that we have no figures to judge by, and it is rather difficult to produce any arguments. At least we have the assurance of the First Lord that we shall keep a Navy ' adequate to its purpose, which is mainly to command our sea communications the world over. In the past the Prime Minister has frequently said—perhaps almost more while he was in opposition than while he was Prime Minister—that the strength of our Navy must depend on our foreign policy. We quite realise, therefore, that until our foreign policy is not only set forth, but is proved to be successful, it is difficult to saywhat Navy we should have. I hope that when the proper time comes the House and the country can be assured that we shall have a Royal Navy adequate to meet any demands that may be made upon it.

5.10 p.m.

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: I want to take up one point referred to by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden). He drew attention to the great waste of time that takes place when a merchant ship has to be protected by carrying defensive armament. There is another point besides this waste of time and it is this. As these ships were not primarily built to carry extra weight on the superstructure, when the extra weight was put on at the epicentre the result was, as the First Lord of the Admiralty knows, that a considerable number of those vessels, having had this extra weight added to the superstructure, were lost through turning turtle. I think that this is a point that might be borne in mind by naval architects. After all, it is better to be safe than sorry. We may have to arm our merchant ships at some time again, although I hope not; and I do not see why, when our ships are designed, they should not be designed to carry this extra weight of Oerlikon guns and so on. I do not see why that should not be done in advance, so that the ships will be, at least, seaworthy when they have to be armed.

Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchison: I want to ask only one question. It would, I understand, be out of Order to raise the question of the conditions of service and pay of permanent officers of the Naval Ordnance Inspection Department on this Vote. Could the First Lord, or the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary, say on which Vote it would be competent for me to raise this matter?

5.12 p.m.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dug-dale): With regard to the last point raised bythe hon. and gallant Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), it would be in Order for him to raise this matter when the Estimates proper are before us at a later stage. As we are to have a considerable discussion at a later period, I shallbe as brief as possible in answering the questions raised today. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir B. Neven-Spence) referred to the technical point about the extra weight on merchant ships. I will see that that is brought to the proper quarters. I could not possibly give him a technical


answer on the spur of the moment. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Captain Marsden) raised a number of points. With regard to his point about the publication of details, as soon as we can get the definite information that we want as to the future composition of the Fleet and know exactly what the future composition of the Fleet is to be, the blue book which was published before the war will be published as before, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will get his information. That will be when we can get, as the First Lord reminds me, reliable information from abroad as well. That is an important point.
I agree that large sums are going to be spent and nobody would grudge an hon. Member raising any points he likes today. I would only stress that these points can be raised at a later period when we can have a full discussion on them. The hon. and gallant Gentleman also referred to the contribution that may be madetowards arming merchant vessels. This will be considered. I cannot give a definite answer yet. He also raised the point as to how far the men can be paid by the Admiralty, but that also may be raised, no doubt, at a later stage. On the question of retiredpensions, that is, again, not a question for the Admiralty alone, but a question which concerns the Treasury, too. We do realise that the officers have given very valuable, untold service to the Navy, and we do not intend that they shall suffer from any unnecessary parsimony on the part of the Admiralty. The hon. and gallant Member said that they had no advocates, but I think that in hon. Members of this House they have a number of very able advocates, and I do not think the officers' case is ever lost sight of in this House, any more than that of the men, I hope. I think the recent White Paper on officers' pay has been received, so far as I can tell, very well. There may be people who disagree with it. There are people who think more should be paid, but on the whole, I think, it has had a very favourable reception. These and numbers of other points raised from time to time by hon. Members will, I have no doubt, be raised again when the Estimates are considered in detail at a later date, when, I hope, we shall be able to have a full discussion and one can give more satisfactory answers.

Question put, and agreed to. Third Resolution agreed to.

REPORT [14th March]

Resolutions reported:

ARMY ESTIMATES, 1946

NUMBER OF LAND FORCES

1. "That a number of Land Forces, not exceeding 2,950,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, exclusive of those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947"

VOTE ON ACCOUNT

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £450,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Army Services which will come in coarse of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947."

ARMY SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding 10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, for expenditure beyond thesum already provided in the grants for Army Services for the year."

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding.


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£



 1. Pay, amp;c. of the Air
10

250,000,000

Resolutions agreed to.

REPORT [12th March]

Resolutions reported;

Air Estimates, 1946

NUMBER FOR AIR FORCE SERVICE

1. "That a number of officers and airmen, not exceeding 760,000, all ranks, be maintained for the Air Force Service of the United Kingdom at Home and Abroad, excluding those serving in India on the Indian Establishment, during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947."

VOTE ON ACCOUNT

2. "That a sum, not exceeding £150,000,000, be granted to His Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the charges for Air Force Services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947."

AIR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATE, 1945

3. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £10, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st


day of March, 1946, for expenditure beyond the sum already provided in the grants for Air Services for the year."

SCHEDULE



Sums not exceeding.


Supply Grants
Appropriations in Aid.


Vote.
£
£


 I. Pay, amp;c. of the AirForce
10
78,000,000

First Resolution agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by Mr. J. J. Lawson, Mr. A. V. Alexander, Mr. Strachey and Mr. Bellenger.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

" to provide, during twelve months, for the discipline and regulation of the Army and the Air Force," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 92.]

SUPPLY: REPORT [12th March]

Remaining Resolutions agreed to.

WAYS AND MEANS [14th March]

Resolutions reported:

" That towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1946, the sum of £27,821,848 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

2. "That, towards making good the Supply granted to His Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1947, the sum of £1,615,885,000 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom."

Resolutions agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolutions by the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Glenvil Hall.

Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill

" to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on the thirty-first day of March, one thousand nine hundred and forty-six and one thousand nine hundred and forty-seven "; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 93.]

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY

5.20 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir Stafford Cripps): I beg to move,
 That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 197), dated 16th February, 1946, made by the Board of Trade under Section 7 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 20th February, be approved.
This is a Motion approving an Order made by the Board of Trade under Section 7 (2) of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, including in the Schedule to that Act two new areas as development areas. This is the first Order which has been made since the passing of the Act, and perhaps it would not be out of place to say a word as to the considerations we have in mind in bringing forward this Motionand including these two areas. The House will appreciate that it would be idle to try and extend the development areas over the whole country, as it would mean cutting down the value of the service which can be given to particular areas, if we made it too wide in its cover. We have had therefore to consider, with very great care, certain representations which have been made from various areas, and ourselves carry out a survey of the country, as it is now developing in this postwar period, to see whether there were any districts in which it appears that heavy unemployment is likely to recur, unless particular steps are taken to give assistance, through the Distribution of Industry Act, to those areas. In making that certain, we have had naturally to turn down some representations which have been put forward, because in our view they had been put forward too early, because there were no signs at present of the difficulties which people feared were showing themselves in these areas. That is related to a number of small isolated places, which we think we can deal with quite effectively without bringing them into development areas; one or two are larger areas where these fears have been expressed, but where we did not see signs at the moment of any heavy unemployment.
This is not necessarily by any means the final Order. We shall keep a close watch upon the whole of the country, and if at any time it appears that help of


this sort is required in any district, we shall not hesitate to come before the House with further Orders, so that we may put within the benefit of the Distribution of Industry Act such other areas as may seem to need that assistance. In both these areas, Wrexham and South Lancashire, there are particular reasons why they should be included Wrexham area, as the House will appreciate, is a coalfield area, as is also the South Lancashire area: In Denbighshire, before the war there had been a fall in employment in coalmining. During the last 20 years, the numbers have fallen from 14,500 in 1928, to 9,100 in 1939, the figure for 1944 being 8,750. Although we hope that there may be some slight revival in some parts of that area as a whole, the reserves are not likely to be able to be worked, and, even if they are, intensive mechanisation will very likely reduce the actual number of persons employed. Apart from that articular class of employment, there are the steel works at Brymbo, and the tile and chemical works at Ruabon. In that area there has never been enough employment for women, but during thewar an Ordnance Factory in the area has provided employment for some 6,200 women, and a number of men as well. The result is that, on the closing down of that cordite factory, over 9,000 people were unemployed. Heavy unemployment has started, and the latest figures for the area show that there are 2,803 wholly unemployed, 797 being men and 2,006 women, which is a large percentage, nearly 11 per cent., of the total insured population in the whole area.
The problem was therefore that we had this large estate of 1,300 acres at March-wiel, and no one with power to convert it into a trading estate where these women could be employed among a number of industries. We thought the best way to deal with the problem would be to make this area a development area. We should then have the power to readapt March-wiel Ordnance Factory to the purposes of a trading estate, and that is what we are proposing to do today. We propose that it should be run as a branch of the South Wales Trading Estate with a local director of South Wales present to look after it. In that way we shall be able to provide a sufficient volume of employment to mop up the unemployed, both men and women. We think, with that readjustment in the Wrexham area, we

can successfully cope with the whole of the unemployment likely to occur. If necessary, we shall have further powers to build factories in other situations if required, but we feel that at the present moment we can deal with the problem through the appropriate utilisation of this large ordnance factory.
The second area is that of South Lancashire. This is part of the Lancashire and Cheshire coalfield, and a large part of it we propose to schedule around the two boroughs of St. Helens and Wigan, including the area between the two. At the peak of coal production, in 1908, 26 million tons were raised per year; it has now declined to about 11 million tons. Some 297 pits were abandoned between 1914 and 1939, and it will therefore be seen that a large decline has taken place in the potential employment of the area, owing to the scaling down of the activities of the mining industry. Fortunately, in that area there are some other industries. In St. Helens there is a glass industry and in Newton-le-Willows an engineering industry. A large part of the employment curing wartime, however, has been in Royal Ordnance and other Government factories. There was a factory at Standish, where I.C.I. employed at its peak 5,000 people. There was also the R.O.F. at Wigan which employed a large number of people, and at least three other Royal Ordnance factories just outside the area, which, to a certain extent, drew their labour from this area.
There is left, as a result of the closing down of some of these ordnance factories and the switching over of others from three shifts to one, a large surplus of labour. Unemployment there has reached a point which makes it appear that it might possibly go back to the figure which it reacned in prewar years, when in the Wigan area it was 28 per cent. Compared with the present areas which are included on the basis of prewar experience in the Schedule, this area would certainly claim to come in as well. In April, 1945, there were 717 people unemployed, and by January, 1946, unemployment had risen to 5,349–2,721 men and 2,628 women.In this area, there is one particular difficulty. The relics of the industrial operations of the past, are, as people in Wigan will judge, not very tempting from the point of view of in-


dustrialists bringing new industries there. This, I think, is a typical case where we should make use of the powers under the Distribution of Industry Act to clear the area, tidy it up, and make it far better so far as its amenities are concerned, in order to induce industrialists to go there and employ the labour which is at the present time available.
Some of the ordnance factories which are in that area will continue to give employment, but not on such a high scale as during the war. Already we have managed to introduce into the Royal Ordnance Factories a number ofcivilian manufactures, which, we hope, will be carried on as a permanent feature of the district. But that still leaves behind the danger of high unemployment which was there before the war. We feel that this is a typical case where, with the decline of the major industries of the district, which will not be met according to present expectations, we should introduce some new industries into the area. The best way of doing that seems to us to be to utilise the powers of the Distribution of Industry Act. For the two reasons which I have given—in the case of the Wrexham area, the development of the Royal Ordnance Factory as a trading estate, and in the case of the Wigan area, the putting in of new industries and the clearing up of this untidy and somewhat derelict industrial area—I feel that these two areas could only be properly coped with by bringing them into the Schedule of the Act.
I hope that the House will approve the action which we are taking and will pass the Motion which I have proposed. I hope, too, that hon. Members will not ask me to include a whole lot of other areas. They can ask certainly, but I can assure them that we are fully aware of the difficulties in these other areas, which have all been forcibly brought before us in deputations from the local authorities and by Members of Parliament They have received the most careful scrutiny and examination, but we feel that for the present, without committing ourselves negatively with regard to the future, that this is as far as we can go. If we go further until we have dealt with some of the existing development areas, we shall be spreading our energies and not helping to get effective development in the areas already in the Act.

5.35 P.m.

Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: I am sure that in adding these areas to the Schedule to the Act the Government are not asking for anything unreasonable, and it is an action. I think, of which we all approve. The figures which the President of the Board of Trade gave us of the unemployment in these areas are convincing proof that these measures are now necessary. I was particularly pleased by his closing remarks in which, he stressed that the scheduling of new areas should be undertaken with great circumspection. The dispersal of industries to where there are pockets of unemployment must be done with circumspection, because dispersal in itself does not lead to industrial efficiency and should be avoided as far as possible. If I understood correctly what the President of the Board of Trade said, itis being done in this case because the problem cannot be solved by other means. We should, as a rule, try to see that the great industrial centres where industry is already established have every chance of absorbing their unemployed before scheduling the area., I am convinced from the speech of the President of the Board of Trade that with regard to these particular areas there is no other course but to adopt the one which has been put before the House

5.37 p.m.

Mr. McKie: The President of the Board of Trade reminded us that there was to be no finality with regard to the areas to come under the Distribution of Industry Act, and he said that there were many isolated spots in the country where the need for inclusion as special areas was already being felt He was most persuasive and begged us not to press him too far this afternoon, because he said that he had the whole country, especially the areas mentioned in this Order very much at heart. I would be the last to discourage the inhabitants of Wrexham and South Lancashire receiving the benefits which we all hope will accrue to them by the passing of this Order. Unemployment is already beginning to be a serious problem in those areas. But I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not forget that there are other places in the country which, although they cannot compare with South Lancashire or Wrexham with regard to the bulk of the industries in those areas, have a number of persons


unemployed or likely to be unemployed during the coming months, if things go on drifting in the way which they are now doing. I represent a constituency which is in the category of one of those isolated geographical areas to which the President of the Board of Trade made reference.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Gentleman is now going too far.

Mr. McKie: With great respect, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I was following on the remarks of the President of the Board of Trade to show that between 60,000—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must not allow himself to be led into temptation.

Mr. McKie: All I can say is that it was the blandishments of the right hon. and learned Gentleman which tempted me to stray from the straight and narrow path. I will leave it at that. I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be as good as his word and not forget these isolated geographical areas which are already beginning to feel the burden likely to be thrust upon them in the coming months by reason of unemployment, largely due to the cessation of wartime industries. I am thinking particularly of munition factories which are now, of course, closing down. I know, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that that is as far as you will allow me to go, and I will conclude by saying that I hope the Government, whenever possible, will include this kind of area within the Order as special development areas under the Distribution of Industry Bill, and that they will come to this House without waiting for the perpetual admonitions and threats of Members of His Majesty's Opposition.

5.42 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I want to remind the House that under this Act the Government have very wide powers in addition to those with regard to the development areas. In particular, the Act gives power to erect factories where factories are needed or provide financial assistance for the erection of factories. The President of the Board of Trade said that this Order was to be regarded as more or less final for the time being and it may not be extended before the three years period of review provided by the

Act. I am concerned withmatters relating to the Borough of Oldham.

Mr. McKie: That is not in Order.

Mr. Hale: I will accept your Ruling on that matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but not someone else's.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The Borough of Oldham does not come within the terms of this Order.

Mr. Hale: I am much obliged to you. I would rather accept a Ruling from you than one from the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie).

Mr. McKie: I must appeal, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for your protection. I never anticipated your Ruling. I merely made a remark sotto voce.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I know the hon. Member easily yields to temptation but always respects the Ruling of the Chair.

Mr. Hale: If the hon. Member for Galloway was merely speaking sotto voce, I hesitate to think what would happen if he spoke out loud. A question that comes in under the consideration of this Order is the shortage of factories. This causes the gravest concern in some of the industrial towns in the adjacent area to the borough I represent. I hope, in view of the fact that you are about to rule out of Order what I was going to say, the President of the Board of Trade, with that ability and knowledge which we all admire, will already have anticipated what I was going to say if it had been in Order, and that he will make note thereof.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Hoy(Leith): I welcome the statement of the President of the Board of Trade that he contemplates making provision for other areas. My constituency can feel very sympathetically towards the places included in this Order and I only hope that when the President of the Board of Trade comes to make a new Order he will not forget that there are other places in Scotland as well as those which have been mentioned.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved:
 That the Distribution of Industry (Development Areas) Order, 1946 (S.R. &amp; O., 1946, No. 197), dated 16th February 1946, made by the Board of Trade under Section 7 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, a copy of which Order was presented on 20th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS

Resolved:
 That the Order made by the Secretary of Stale for the Home Department, extending Section Iof the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the City of Wells, a copy of which Order was presented on 14th March, be approved."—[Mr. Oliver.

Orders of the Day — SURPLUS GOVERNMENT STORES (DISPOSAL)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Joseph Henderson.]

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Butcher: I count myself mostfortunate to introduce so early in the evening a subject for debate, which I believe is of considerable importance to all of us, particularly those of us who are interested in the proper expenditure of public money and the surveillance of public expenditure. I gave notice a fortnight ago that I would raise the question of the disposal of Government stores, particularly vehicles The Minister of Supply ought to be congratulated not only as an administrator but also as a skilled Parliamentarian in that on one weekday before this matter was to be raised in the House of Commons he should have summoned a Press conference to show a complete change of policy on the part of the Government. I make no complaint about the Government changing their plans. Indeed, this question of vehicles throughout the country was fast becoming a grave public scandal, and we are indeed grateful to the newspapers for their part in this matter. I will mention one in particular, the "Evening Standard." These papers with their leaders andpictures have focussed public attention on this matter. Therefore, I will not use this brief speech of mine to give a description of Government dumps which I believe would make every Member of this House almost gasp with astonishment. I prefer to try to beconstructive. I think the Ministry of Supply must at once be cleared of some responsibility, because they are not the only owners of dumps in this country. In fact, they are the residuary legatees of dumps of surplus Government vehicles owned by the War Office and the Air Ministry while the

Home Office have their own special dumps on which vehicles of the National Fire Service are thrown. These vehicles are being thrown on the dumps by the various Government Departments and are left there by them fartoo long whilst the Ministry of Supply are not disposing of them in anything like the time they should.
I will take the case of one Royal Air Force dump at Spanhoe, near Kettering, in Northamptonshire. There are some 10,000 vehicles on that dump, in the open air, with an inadequate number of men to take care of them. Some of these vehicles have only recently been overhauled. One in particular—and I have the number of it—was overhauled a few months ago at a cost of £139 3s. Since then it has run 300 miles and has stood on this field at Spanhoe for four months. On this dump there are at least five Humber limousines, staff cars, standing in the open. The value of each car is quite considerable, probably over £1,000 each. What is theresult? With the inadequate number of men to look after these things, clocks are stolen, parts are taken, carpets are removed and the leather upholstery cut up by razor, blades for chair coverings and the making of handbags. I ask the Ministry of Supply,who are still supplying staff cars to the Service Departments, to adopt a firmer attitude, and to refuse them more cars until they make better use of those they have now.
What is the Government's policy with regard to the disposal of these surplus vehicles? We have not had an announcement from them, and I think I am right in assuming that their policy for the disposal of surplus Government stores is that indicated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was President of the Board of Trade, in a statement he made in the House on 2nd November, 1943. I will not quote his exact words, but the right hon. Gentleman said that before working out plans for disposal, the Board of Trade, together with other responsible Departments, would consult with representatives of the producers and distributors concerned. I should be grateful if the Parliamentary Secretary would indicate whether, in this rather radical departure from the policy which was laid down, producers and distributors were consulted on the proposal to get rid of Government surplus vehicles by public


auction. Government policy is contained in Command Paper No. 6539 in which, in paragraph 10, there is laid down the three principles to be adopted, under the headings (a), (b), (c). The first may be summarised as "orderly marketing," the second as" use of the normal channels," and the third as "price control." I will read sub-paragraph (c):
To ensure, if necessary by statutory price control, that the prices charged to the ultimate consumer are fair and reasonable in relation to the current prices of similar articles, to prevent profiteering on the part of dealers handling the goods, and to keep down the number of intermediaries to the minimum compatible with proper distribution.
These are admirablesentiments. But if we examine the Minister's proposals for getting rid of these vehicles by public auction we find that they contravene the three principles I have just put before the House. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but I think the Government's policy of getting rid of the vehicles by auction makes a contravention of those principles inevitable. I raise no complaint, but the fact should be recognised. Further, it is a pity that a major change of this nature in Government policy shouldhave been stated at a Press conference on a Saturday rather than in this House in the way in which the original proposals were laid before Parliament.
Let us take these three sub-paragraphs, and see how they apply to the disposal of vehicles by public auction. First, sub-paragraph (a),which deals with orderly marketing. According to a report of the Press conference, the Minister of Supply said that the Government wanted to clear the motor parks right down to the grass, that a catalogue was being prepared, and that the sale would be open to dealers and private buyers and would continue for four days a week until everything had been sold. That is speed, and it is praiseworthy, but it is not orderly marketing. It is bringing vehicles back on to the civilian market as fast as they can be reconditioned. From the moment they are sold under the hammer I take it that the Ministry of Supply loses control over them.
Next, is sub-paragraph, (b), which refers to use of the nonnal channels. Again, at the Press conferencethe Minister is reported to have said that all would have a chance of buying the vehicles they wanted, and that it had been arranged that cars in running order and those in

the best condition would be sold singly, so that the small private buyer would have an opportunity of satisfying his needs. I make no complaint of that, but I think it is right that a departure from declared policy should be recognised. Third, there is sub-paragraph (c), which deals with price control, the prevention of profiteering and the keeping down of the number of intermediaries If the property passes with the fall of the nammer from the Ministry, how can they apply these principles to the vehicles being sold? The Minister suggests that side by side with this policy of disposal by public auction— which, for my part, I welcome—he is to continue the existing scheme for the disposal of these vehicles.
What is the existing scheme? It is this: Vehicles, as they become surplus, are notified by the Ministry of. Supply to the manufacturers, who offer them, at fixed prices, to their main agents. These agents examine the vehicles, and decide whether they can take them or not. If they do take them a change is added for reconditioning to bring the vehicles into a state of road worthiness so that they can be put on to the road with there months' guarantee. Then the agents add their profit. I wish to be the last person in the world to persuade a Socialist Minister against providing two profits, one for the manufacturer and one for the distributor, before the ultimate consumer gets the goods. But it is worth while asking if such a scheme can really run side by side with the new policy of disposal by public auction. The Minister said that the decision to sell these vehicles by auction was merely to supplement the agreement, which had been in effect for some years, with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. I submit that it will cut right across the earlier scheme, and make it entirely unworkable. If, by selling vehicles to manufacturers for passing on to dealers, the Ministry of Supply arc paid less for the vehicles than they can make from public auction, is it good economy? Is not that the sort of conduct which would inevitably cause comment by the Public Accounts Committee? Would not it lay the Minister open to the risk of a charge of not securing the best prices he could for Government property?
Supposing the vehicles can be purchased for less at an auction than the fixed price, why should a dealer pay the higher fixed price? He will have no


further interest in the scheme which the Minister proposes can run side by side with the public auction scheme. If we consider the unlikely possibility that prices are almost exactly the same, whether by private sale, through the manufacturer or by public auction, then every dealer will prefer to purchase his vehicles by auction. In so doing he can re-sell at whatever prices the vehicles will fetch in the open market, whether it is by cutting the fixed price a little, or increasing it a little. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us that the Ministry have second and better thoughts on this matter, and that this scheme of reconditioning vehicles, as it has existed up to now, will cease with the new scheme and policy of disposal by public auction.
I ask the Government to give us a little more information with regard to these vehicles as they come on to the road. What about road safety? Are any steps to be taken to make sure that these vehicles are roadworthy before they are put on the road? That is a proposition that could be examined in two ways. In the case of vehicles sold to somebody else and re-licensed, there is no obligation on the purchaser to make them roadworthy before they are licensed. On the other hand, to think of large numbers of vehicles being improperly reconditioned and put on the roads at the present time, when the toll of life and limb is so high, is not an attractive proposition. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that he should invite the cooperation of the leading insurance companies in order to have an examination of the reconditioned vehicles before they are submitted for registration.
I would like to have some assurance, and some further details, as to what steps are to be taken to make sure that the small man gets a chance of buying these vehicles. I hope the Minister will set his face against selling these vehicles in large lots of 100 or more, or the equally undesirable practice of selling one lot with an option on a substantial number of subsequent lots of a similar type. I hope every step will be taken to make sure that the small man wishing to buy one vehicle or two vehicles will have an opportunity of so doing. Unless proper arrangements are made for getting these vehicles away, they willeither drop very largely into the wrong hands, or they will go to the large

firms. Itrust that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to indicate one of two things, either that a reasonable quantity of petrol will be available for getting away thevehicles that will go under their own power, or that arrangements will be made to load the vehicles, for a fixed charge payable by the purchaser, at a railway station, so that they may be consigned and sent away by rail.
Finally, what other goods is it proposed to dispose of by public auction in this way? The old scheme of getting rid of Government stores only through the producers and distributors has now been broken. The Minister broke that scheme when he announced these public auctions. If an auction is the right way of getting rid of vehicles, it cannot be too bad a way of clearing other Government stores which are now occupying badly needed factory space all over the country. Is the same policy to be applied to surplus motor parts, which it would be right and proper to dispose of at the same time as the surplus motor vehicles are disposed of? What about workshop equipment? What is the policy with regard to machine tools? Are they to be put on to the open market, or is the Minister going to confine arrangements for the disposal of these goods to the machine tool industry?
These are points in which the House and the country are taking a keen interest, for the disposal of Government stores has moved far too slowly in the past. An enormous quantity of factory space is now occupied by stores that sooner or later will have to come on to the market. The test of the present arrangements for marketing is, Do they work? It is true they are working, but we are living in a time of urgency, and they are working far too slowly. I believe that the Minister, by making his announcement of the sale of vehicles by public auction, has taken a great step towards clearing these dumps which have been an eyesore and were developing into a scandal, but equally he has reversed Government policy on the disposal of Government stores, and we now wish to know whether public sales of vehicles are to be followed by public sales of other surplus goods.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Hale: I do not propose to follow the remarks of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), although I am grateful to him


for raising this matter. I wish to mention only two small but exceedingly important aspects of the matter. The first concerns the disposal of reconditioned vehicles. I think it is generally accepted that these reconditioned vehicles are, at the moment, one of the best bargains available in the motor market. They are allocated on a system of priorities, and it seems to be impossible to ascertain what the priorities are. I should have thought that the first priority would have been disabled ex-Service men who need a car for the purpose of getting a job and keeping a job. I was interviewed yesterday by one of my constituents, a 40 per cent. disabled man, travelling from Oldham to Bury and back each day to work, in circumstances of the greatest difficulty. He applied for one of these vehicles and was told that, because he was not 50 per cent. disabled, he was not on the priority list, or at any rate was not sufficiently advanced on the priority list to have any chance of getting a vehicle. I am sure the Minister will look into that matter and do something about it.
I should like to express my agreement with the concluding sentences of the hon. Member for Holland with Boston. The question of the retention of factory and business premises as stores for Government stocks is becoming a grave national problem. In my constituency, engineers are out of work because factory premises are not available, and most of the available premises are being kept as stores for maintaining stocks which may never be of any use to the Government. I appreciate the problem and the difficulty, but having regard to the great attention which the Minister has always paid to representations from hon. Members, I hope he will look into this matter as one of first priority, and see how far it may be possible to dispose of the stores as quickly as possible and make the premises available, or transfer them to some of the many empty aerodrome hangars in other parts of the country, which cannot be used as factory premises. May I apologise that I shall not be present to hear the Minister's reply because of another engagement of some importance in another part of the House?

6.38 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) for raising this issue, because I think that a

Debate on this subject is necessary; but I think the kind of Debate we want is one of a very much wider character than my hon. Friend has chosen to introduce.

Mr. Butcher: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I anticipated this matter would be raised at the customary time for the Adjournment, and not at this hour.

Mr. Brown: I quite understand that, and I do not make any complaint; indeed, so faras I have any emotions at the moment, I am grateful for any opportunity, however narrow, of discussing the matter; but I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, in guiding the Debate, will allow hon. Members to travel pretty widely. What we need in the House is to rediscuss the policy of the White Paper on the disposal of surplus Government stocks, in the light of our experience since that White Paper was adopted. We need to take stock of the whole position about the disposal of surplus Government stores, and consider all the elements that arise out of it. One element, for example, is price. The second element is the speed of disposal. The third element is the reclaiming of wastage storage and factory accommodation, to which the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) referred.
The fourth concerns the direction in which we release supplies of those commodities which are short; the fifth concerns the relative claims of this country and Europe in the disposal of our surplus; Government stocks. There are five-issues, each of them of some substance, and I have no doubt that many Members can think very easily of other aspects of this problem, which really need thorough and free discussion in this House in the light of our experience in the last few months.
I do not share the point of view that the Government have necessarily done wrong here. I would go so far as to say that whatever they do they are bound to be shot at, because they are caught in a series of contradictions which are inescapable. It might be well to consider what happened at the end of the first great world war, number one in the series. It is roughly true to say that then we got rid of the stuff as quickly as we could, any old how. The result was that all kinds of financial thugs in Britain—if the word "thug" be not too tender a term—got in quickly, bought up huge stocks of


Government surplus goods, and landed them on the market at an immense profit to themselves. Vast fortunes were made out of public property at the end of the last war. And I can quite understand the Government, after the recent war, number two of the series, taking the view that they wanted to avoid a repetition of what took place after world war number one. In taking that precaution, however, they may easily fall into the opposite error of disposing of the stuff so slowly that first of all you get complaints from all over the country of stuff rotting in dumps—and everyone could contribute his mite of experience on that subject—and secondly that supplies urgently needed by our own people reach them either not at all, or only at a very inadequate rate. In avoiding one error, it is easy to fall into its opposite. I think that the Government may be in this position at the present stage, and if they think it well to revise the policy of the White Paper they will not find me an opponent. There is room for second thoughts, in the light of our exprience on this matter. Let me put it this way. It may be a great evil that someone should make profit, but it is a greater evil that all sorts of people who want the supplies cannot get them at any price. We are steering here a passage between Scylla and Charybdis and we had better get nearer the middle of the channel if we are to get through it without undue damage.
The first pointis the question of price and pace of disposal. The second is the direction of surplus stocks in cases where supplies are short. I take one example of this which every hon. Member will at once recognise from his postbag. There is a great shortage of soft goods in Britain—blankets, sheets, pillows, mattresses, table-cloths and so on. And there is a tremendous demand for them. I do not know what is the experience of young people today but I should say that the obstacles in the way of getting married and setting up a home are more formidable than at any'stage in my lifetime. We make a mistake in this House in imagining that the population outside think as we do. We divide ourselves, naturally, into political categories, defenders of liberal capitalism, social democrats, and protagonists of communist totalitarian-lsm What people outside are thinking

about is how they can make ends meet, how they can get a job at a better rate of pay, get married and furnish a house on the coupons; and "Ought I to have a baby in existing circumstances?" That is what the ordinary man and woman outside is thinking about.
I have some financial interest in this matter and it is part of the tradition of the House that when one refers to an industry in which one is financially interested one should openly proclaim the fact. I am interested in the holiday camp industry. It is the case that during the war the Government commandeered practically the whole of the soft goods of the holiday camps. Now the Government says to the industry that there will be a terrific demand for holidays this year, and there will because every one of us knows the deep and urgent need of a break for people who have been held down to the grindstone for six years past. Therefore, the Government are urging the industry to lose no opportunity of opening as quickly as possible this year. If the holiday camps are to open they need sheets, pillowcases, mattresses and so on. And I am bound to inform the House that the allocation which has been made by the President of the Board of Trade to the holiday camp industry is a frivolous irrelevance to the needs of that industry. The allocation made by the Board of Trade is 75,000 pairs of blankets, 100,000 sheets and about the same number of blankets. This is hardly enough to stock out the two biggest holiday camps in Britain. I must tell the House with gravity that unless something more can be done then this industry will not be able to function this year. The camps will just not be able to open. It may be said—and it is true—that there are all kinds of other claims to these sheets and blankets. I recognise this fact, and it is no part of my case that the holiday camps have any kind of priority over anyone else. If it were the case that only so many sheets and blankets could be given to the holiday camps because the others were going to meet the immense demand of domestic consumers that might be an adequate answer. But are they? How many sheets, and blankets have gone from this country to Europe? I am told, I do not know how accurately, that recently the Office of Works made 2,500,000 blankets available to the Board of Trade.


Where have they gone? I think we must have some sort of reasonable judgment of the needs of the industry and some reasonable allocation of surplus stocks where there is a shortage to be considered
The Americans have taken a very different line in disposing of their surplus Government stock. In Europe they own literally hundreds and thousands of millions of pounds' worth of surplus stocks and, broadly speaking, they are taking roughly the line taken by us at the end of world war number one. They are selling the stuff regardless of where it goes, and of who subsequently makes a profit out of it. But there is one thing to be said. By their method they are getting rid of the goods. These are finding their way into the hands of the consumer, although at one or two stages removed, and though profit is made in the process. Nevertheless, they do effectively reach the consumer who needs them. In Britain that is not true to a large extent
As I said when I rose, I do not wish to attack the Government on this matter. I think it is an extraordinarily difficult problem and that whatever they do they are liable to attack from one side or the other. But I would commend to their earnest attention the three or four points I have raised. First, what is to be the relationship between pace and price in determining the procedure for the disposal of Government stocks, because they are closely connected? If the emphasis is put on pace it cannot be oh price, because the faster the stuff is sold the less money will be received for it The decision as to the social weight to be attached to these two factors respectively in working out' a general disposal policy, is very important. Next, the direction of surplus stocks to where supplies are short. Third, the relationship between supplies distributed in Britain and those distributed in Europe.
I do not want to say a word to dry up the bowels of compassion, or the fountains of mercy, of the Government front bench. But I beg them to see that if there has to be a choice between our own folk and other folk, they should give our own folk the first chance. Our people have had six years of rough, hard work, and their supplies are worn out The coupon system has not sufficed to replace what has worn out. There is a vast short-

age of all kinds of commodities in Britain.. We ought not to make up the shortages of other people before we make up the shortages of our own folk. I hope that the Government will take into account those three or four points.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Shawcross: I desire to return to the rather narrower compass of Debate as it was opened by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher), namely, the projected disposal of surplus vehicles. I was startled, indeed, horrified, at his-suggestion that the Government were about to let loose upon the roads large numbers of vehicles which might not be in a roadworthy condition. As far as I can recall, it is a criminal offence under the Road Traffic Acts and regulations made thereunder to put upon the road, and to use, a vehicle which is not roadworthy. There are already far too many unroadsworthy vehicles of all types being driven around daily, causing accidents with loss of life and serious injury. That arises from several causes, I understand. Perhaps a vehicle has been laid up for a long time, or spare parts were not available, or skilled labour was not obtainable to effect repairs It is also caused by the shortage of manpower in the police force as a result of which these offences—they still remain offences—are not checked.
As I understood the suggestion which came from the hon. Member, it was at least a possibility that the vehicles to which he referred will be sold by auction and, if petrol can be made available, will be driven away straight from those dumps. I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary for an assurance—I cannot conceive that he can possibly refuse to give it—that no vehicle which is unroadworthy should be disposed of for immediate use upon the road. In other words, I want an assurance that there will be, as there would be in the case of a private retailer, a warranty that the vehicle is in a safe and roadworthy condition. If it is not possible to give such a guarantee or warranty, some condition should be imposed to make it certain that those vehicles will be taken to a proper repairing organisation before they are put upon the road at all and will be made safe and roadworthy.
I do not know whether the hon. Member has any further details than those


which have appeared in the Press about the terms upon which this disposal will be made. It has certainly appeared in the Press that if the would-be purchaser can secure sufficient petrol or the coupons with which to buy it, he will be able to drive the vehicle away. This point may seem small in relation to the wide range of subjects introduced by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown), but in my respectful submission to the Parliamentary Secretary it is a most important point. It is a matter of life and death to hundreds of innocent women, children and old people, who not only may, but inevitably will, be struck down by those vehicles if they are disposed of in an unroadworthy condition without any check such as I have suggested. I hope I can take it as certain that the Parliamentary Secretary will give an assurance that this Government would not for one moment think of introducing such a menace upon the roads.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. Dumpleton: One aspect of this matter is troubling a great many people and it would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary would give us some clarification upon it, I believe, from letters which I have received, there is a widespread impression that a far too wholesale and indiscriminate smashing up and breaking down of good vehicles is taking place. I understand that there were N.F.S. vehicles at the Crystal Palace upon the breaking up of which until recently 100 Italian prisoners were engaged. At Great Missenden there was, I am told, one vehicle broken up which had no other defect than a dent in the wing.
I am aware that Service vehicles are very much like hon. Members of this House, in that it would be a mistake to judge their capacity for work by their external appearance; but the policy of indiscriminate and none too careful smashing up and breaking down of vehicles appears to the public to be a complete waste of good material, at a time when vehicles are badly needed by many members of the community. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will give me an answer on this point.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. Collins: I would like to introduce a point to which reference has not so far been made. I hope the Minister

will not be stampeded by pressure of various kinds into the creation of unemployment by the overspeedy or uncontrolled release of this surplus. I represent a small industry on a disposals panel. Last year 1 sat with members of the Ministry staff and devised a scheme for the orderly disposal of certain surpluses. It happens that the industry had, for several years during the war, been concentrated on the production of certain stores. In our view, it was, therefore, desirable that there should not be any very largescale or over speedy release.
At the time, we did not know with any degree of accuracy the quantities that would be for disposal. A certain rate of absorption was agreed upon. Later we found that the quantities would be much larger than had been expected, owing to the decision of the Government greatly to speed up releases of stores, as was and is very necessary to facilitate the derequisitioning of premises. We were asked to handle a very much larger quantity in a very much shorter time. It was felt that substantial quantities of those goods could be exported. That hope was not realised. Within the last two weeks the industry have been informed that a very substantial quantity would be released immediately, not, as had been expected through the machinery that has been created, but by ordinary open tender.
We felt, and said, that would inevitably create unemployment in certain sections of the industry, but we have been informed that our views on that matter are not upheld, although one would have thought that experience in this industry would count. I hope, therefore, that this matter will be very seriously considered, because I believe it was one of the prime essentials of the original disposal scheme that any disposals of surpluses would be made in a way which would not seriously affect employment in any industry.
There is one other point which, in the light of experience, I would put forward to the Minister, and that is in the disposal of goods where there is a very ready demand. We are all aware that in a great many of these dumps the goods which are now lying in so many parts of the country are very difficult indeed to dispose of at all, and some, in fact, have little or no commercial value. However,


there are, in many instances, trade goods which canbe readily disposed of without having any effect upon current employment. It has been my experience that the process of disposal is very slow indeed. The system which we have followed is that the committee should advise the disposals branch of firms who are willing to accept surpluses on terms and under conditions which have already been agreed. Now when those names and quantities are advised to the disposals branch, they are then forwarded to the contract department of the Ministry, and eventually contracts are issued to the various firms, who then are expected to pay for the goods before delivery, which is perfectly proper. However, the time taken between advising the firms in question and their receipt of the necessary contract appears to me to average some eight weeks.
That is not the end of the story. Once the account has been paid the process goes on and the Service Department which is in control of the goods in question then has to play its part in delivery. That period of delivery by the Service Department takes a further indefinite period of anything from two to three months, as far as my experience goes, which is a total of four to five months for the delivery of goods which are needed when allocation has been made, and where a price has been determined. I would suggest that that is far too long and that this needs to be looked into very seriously. I know of one firm which is still waiting for the delivery of goods for which they paid last January, and which actually only need to be put on a lorry or train for delivery. In my view one of the main reasons for this particular delay is lack of liaison between the Ministry and the Service Department whose responsibility it is to receive the order for despatch and get the goods away.
Now, if it is imperative, as it is, to empty these various stores, then most stringent instructions should be given that when an order is received for a quantity of goods of a known type, which presumably are ready for immediate despatch, they should be immediately despatched to the consignee in order that distribution which is already arranged for, should proceed.. I hope that the Minister in his reply will deal with that particular point.

6.35 p.m.

Sir William Darling: I think the House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) for raising this important question, and I am grateful to him in that it may well mean a revival of interest in the subject of public economy which at one time was more associated with his party than it is today. This is really a very grave question. It will not have escaped you, Mr. Speaker, that speakers on the other side, while able, eloquent and well informed are none of them business men, and they are engaged, to the best of their ability, in grappling with a simple situation which the ordinary commercial men of this country have dealt with for the last 100 and 150 years. Until the advent of theories of mass buying and mass distribution, the goods and services of this country were, by and large, generally and freely available to everyone. A queue was not known until within the last few years. The ordinary manufacturing and distributing system of this country has served its purposes very satisfactorily, and it is only the introduction of this Fabian system of buying collectively and endeavouring to sell collectively that brings us to this shocking impasse which disgusts the public and which even concerns the House of Commons.
There is, of course, a reason for it, Mr. Speaker, as you well know. The reason is that there might be a profit to someone somewhere if the ordinary methods of disposing of goods and services were resorted to, and that, as you know, Sir, is a high crime. After the last war, as the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) has reminded us, we faced a dilemma either of having what is now called orderly distribution—which means dumps and no distribution at all—or having helter skelter distribution. We had helter skelter distribution. I was told that many men made large fortunes out of war supplies after the last war. What happened to these fortunes? Persons who are concerned about the profit motive never follow very far what happens to profits. But profits cannot be earned, let me remind the House, first of all without the public being served. The public are served freely. They need not buy if they do not want to do so.
Perhaps I may take an example for hon. Members who are too entrenched


in the finer political theories of these days. I would remind them of the sale of the balloon cloth at the end of the last war. Many millions of yards of this fabric had been brought into manufacture for the purpose of making balloons, etc. At the end of the war millions of yards of it were available, and the Government of that day sent round a number of nicely dressed civil servants with black jackets and striped trousers and small patterns asking drapers to buy 50 yards of it.

Mr. W. J. Brown: Who were they?

Sir W. Darling: They were members, doubtless, of the profession of which the hon. Gentleman is such a distinguished member.

Mr. Brown: Not if they were well dressed.

Sir W. Darling: They were well dressed by the standards of those days but were not so well dressed by the standard now imposed upon us by the Board of Trade. Anattempt was made by the Government to undertake so-called orderly distribution of this fabric and it was completely unsuccessful, so they found a bold man who put down £1,000,000 and bought many millions of yards of balloon cloth. In two years this balloon cloth, which nobody would buy in the first instance, was advertised, new uses were found for it, the dexterous and intelligent housewife thought of new purposes wherewith to use this balloon cloth, with the result that every table was covered withit, every napkin was made of it, screens and curtains, unobtainable today, were made from it, children's overalls and garments of every description were made of it. It is true that, although the public was served in a way which was very satisfactory and gratifying, somebody made a profit, and I hope, a very handsome profit.
Following my argument, what happened to the profit? There is a very elaborate and complete and exact system of taxation in this country, and if it was an exorbitant profit, if it was a profit of a highly reprehensible character, it returned to the national Exchequer. Everyone was pleased by this helter skelter distribution. The goods were removed from the dumps, the women got them for purposes they wanted, the man got his profit.

and the Chancellor of the Exchequer got his tax. That is a simple elementary system of distribution which has stood the test of time. It is a worthwhile system of distribution which I defend in contrast to this fantastic system of no distribution at all. It has outstanding merits with which even my hon. Friends opposite will agree.
The present method is of course the inevitable consequence of the application of a system of bureaucratic control to the free natural processes of industry. Why should these many surplus stores not find a needy market? In a world hungry for goods here and overseas, famine struck for goods of every description, His Majesty's Government are holding up millions of pounds' worth of commodities. For what purpose? To get a better price?That might be excusable. But rather they are holding them up through sheer ineptitude and incompetence and because they do not understand the method of distribution. The system to which they have pinned their faith and hopes is, in the essence of things, inadequate to the purpose. There is no proper impetus. Where is there a civil servant who has an inducement to sell? He has little incentive for such a task; he has no commission to encourage his efforts.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. Member aware that those same members of the Civil Service who do not get a commission on the sale of surplus goods now did not get a commission when with the utmost enthusiasm they produced goods for the wax effort?

Mr. W. J, Brown: I might add that not only did they not get a commission, but their pay was and is extremely bad.

Sir W. Darling: I have fortunate reinforcements from both sides of the House in my view that without this commission, which is considered so desirable apparently by the hon. Member for Rugby, we cannot expect,nor is it reasonable to demand, the businesslike impetus which comes from the profit motive. I am grateful for the intervention and for the support it gives to the view I am expressing.
It is astounding to me coming from many political meetings to hear this strange story by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) about Italian prisoners engaged in destroying motor cars in the neighbourhood of the Crystal


Palace. I think the Parliamentary Secretary will remember occasions onwhich he has told me of bags of coffee being burned. Here is not modern capitalism engaged in destroying essential goods and services, but a Socialist Government of 1946 employing alien prisoners of war in the confines of the London County Council area itself to destroy not a few bags of coffee, but property of which the world is in great need and worth many thousands of pounds. During the war the little railings of the spinsters and widows and the good folk of the City of Edinburgh were taken by the Minister of Works, and I harangued the citizens to that end. But the change in Government policy is difficult to follow. It seems to be to save in times of war and squander in dmes of peace. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston reminds us of this catalogue, the White Paper. There is not an illustration in it, not even an attractive description of the merchandise. No one would buy anything from that catalogue I can tell the Parliamentary Secretary of a printer in his own city who will produce something which would attract people
These are the principles of orderly marketing. It is orderly marketing right enough, orderly, but not marketing—slow motion but not selling. It is to be done through the usual channels. What are the usual channels? The usual channels have not been asked in many instances to operate. I have complaints from retail traders that they can get disposal stores from the Americans and the Canadians but cannot get them through His Majesty's Government in a country which is hungrier than Canada or the United States. This is an example of the failure of the theory of His Majesty's Government. This afternoon we have heard of a proposal to set up a collective cotton buying body. It would be well if the President of the Board of Trade could look at this collective selling body which is already so much failing in its endeavours.
I think it is right to say that hon. Members opposite are caught with this glamorous picture of the planned world, but though they have great vision they have not the vision to see the interaction of the real plan; the plan which for thousands of years has given men and women on this planet food and shelter and the needs of life. Because they have been looking at the far horizon, they have

not seen how well this plan has worked in generations gone by. Now these fantastic theories of persons inexperienced in business possess the minds of the Government. Let us get rid of every store which the Government possess. Let us have a great bargain sale and get into the homes and garages of the people, who want them, every single commodity we have for disposal. We bought them by the taxpayers' money in the war and do not want the goods in peace. They ought to be distributed where they are needed.
These seem to me so simple and obvious conclusions that Iam sure the Parliamentary Secretary will not be discouraged at questions on his own side of the House as to whether this is a change of Government policy. Let us dispose of the stores with the utmost celerity. I cannot close without referring to the hon.Member for Rugby who referred to my class, the business class, the people responsible for the organisation of society and the people who find employment—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): Unemployment.

Sir W. Darling: —find employment for the men who are returning from the war. That obligation is laid on the so-called capitalist class, the State does not undertake that responsibility. It has to be undertaken by people I represent; the middle class who have been responsible for organisation of the supplies which the Government are in process of destroying. That class is described by the hon. Member for Rugby as "thugs." He thought "thug" was too gentle a term.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I must say I am enjoying this speech, but the hon. Gentleman is giving my humble remarks a much wider application than I myself gave them. I merely said that at the end of the last war there were a lot of financial thugs who made a lot of money out of surplus stocks. That is not acondemnation of the whole capitalist class. We are not tonight discussing the relative merits of the capitalist class as a class, or any other class. I was reciting a fact which I thought was well known in any community.

Sir W. Darling: I think the description "financial thugs" is an offensive one and, coming from one who is only now entering business for the first time


in connection with an adventure in holiday camps, following the adventure of Mr. Butlin, I think it is an improper word.

Mr. Brown: This becomes better and better, but more inaccurate and more in-accurate. I built the first holiday camp in Britain long before Mr. Butlin came into the business. I taught Mr. Butlin about the business.

Sir W. Darling: Thanks for the correction. It bears out what I was saying that persons not engaged in business are very free with ideas, but it requires a person with business knowledge to have a balance sheet and to put the ideas into production. The hon. Member for Taun-ton told us what many Members on this side know to be true, the difficulty of doing any business with the Government. The reason is that it is not a business Government. How many business men are there on the Front Bench opposite and how many worth while ones are there on the Benches behind it? Very few indeed. He told us that though goods have been paid for in advance—in dealing with the Government one has to put one's doubtful money down before they take one's order—that although goods were bought last January, no delivery has yet materialised. More than 13 months have passed—

Mr. Collins: Last January means January, 1946, which is not yet three months ago.

Sir W. Darling: Even so, this Government which claims that it is a Government that gets things done, having taken people's money, cannot give delivery in three months. This discussion is a proof of the falsity of the theory which this country is going to pay dearly to prove to be wrong. Governments cannot conduct public business in the individual sense in which individual traders can. They are wise Governments which leave it to those who are competent to discharge it. Control them, regulate them, tax them, insult them if you like, but do not be so unwise as to enter into the business of distribution and exchange. Thatis not the business of Government, and this Debate proves it.

6.53 P.M

Major John. Morrison: I also offer my congratulations to the hon.

Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) on raising this subject tonight. I endorse what has already been said in expressing the hope that we shall hear from whoever is to reply to the Debate, that safety precautions are to be laid down in respect of these vehicles that are going out of the motor car dumps. I also hope that, if possible, the ex-Serviceman who is setting up in business, will be given a chance of getting these cars. Up to the moment he has not had the chance which he feels he has a right to expect after years in the Services. There are two points on which I wish to touch. The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) mentioned the difficulty of the shortage of blankets for holiday camps. There are also thousands of young married people who cannot get blankets and sheets. Yet I heard ten days ago—I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this—that there are between 500,000 and a million blankets stored somewhere in Olympia. I do not know whether they are the concern of the hon. Gentleman's Ministry or of the Army. Some are the best airborne blankets. Secondly, my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) mentioned the railings which had been taken down from countless small gardens. This morning I went by, and I go by it frequently, an enormous pile of barbed wire—indeed three great piles as high as this Chamber—between Slough and Maidenhead. Before it becomes thoroughly rust ridden, I feel it should be boiled down and made into iron utensils of the essential kind, of which we are short.

6.55 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman one question. About a year ago I called the attention of the then Home Secretary, the present Leader of the House, to a dump of 100 vehicles, mostly cars but including some lorries as well, standing in a place called Park Hatch, in the parish of Dunsfold, in Surrey. This is a particularly scandalous instance of the neglect of Government property. It is only fair to say that it occurred during the time of the Coalition Government. I wrote to the then Home Secretary, saying that I did not wish to embarrass him by asking a question, but that I hoped he would look into the matter. When I saw it, the dump was unguarded, the rain was pouring down on the vehicles and there was no one within


half a mile. It would have been possible for car thieves to have takenthe vehicles away even if they had had to tow them. About two months ago I had occasion to pass the same place, and they were still there, though I believe that there was someone in charge.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sir J.Jarvis), who represents the area in which the dump is situated, has been in communication with the hon. Gentleman on the question. According to private information brought to my notice, the hon. Gentleman said that he would go down and look at it. This really supports what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling). It is inconceivable that any private individual or private firm would show such a gross neglect of his or its property and it is the worst possible advertisement for Socialism. The fact that these vehicles are the property of the public—one can make a joke of it but I see nothing funny about it—makes it a scandalous thing and one which reflects discredit on the Coalition Government, on the Leader of the House and on the hon. Gentlemen that these cars should be left there, and that after a whole year the Government still do not know what to do with them. I hope the hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong in any particular, but I can vouch for the fact that these vehicles were there in the first instance and again the other day; and I hope he will say what is the explanation of this scandalous state of affairs.

6.57 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Aircraft Production (Mr. Woodburn): I am grateful, as I think the Government are, to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) for raising this matter in Debate. It has been quite clear to me, from reading the Press for a considerable time, that this subject has been full of misapprehensions and that there is great difficulty on the part of the public in understanding what is happening all over the country with regard to surplus stores. Therefore, I sympathise with hon. Members who have had difficulty in the matter, and have raised it tonight. I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling), with his special interest in balloons—

Sir W. Darling: Balloon fabric.

Mr. Woodburn: After they have burst they become balloon fabric, of course. I know the hon. Member's great ability and his charm of expression, and there is no doubt that he provides great amusement for Members on this side of the House with his caricature of capitalism, which he continually introduces into Debates. Hiscontribution would have been of more value, had he inquired into the subject a little more deeply before making his contribution to the Debate. It is obvious that most of it was based entirely on misapprehensions he has gathered through what other people have described, and that he has not himself investigated the matter. Otherwise, he would have made my speech for me tonight.
I would like to say a word about coffee, to which the hon. Member referred. The difference between coffee and scrapped cars, is that one cannot eat scrapped cars.

Sir W. Darling: Both are destroyed by Governments.

Mr. Woodburn: Coffee can be consumed. That is the great problem about it. I hope hon. Members will allow me to treat the matter with the seriousness with which it has been raised by a great number of Members tonight. If I deal with all the points raised, hon. Members will agree that they will take me over a very wide field, but I think it due to the House that some kind of picture should be given of this matter. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston asked me whether the Government had departed from the White Paper. The answer is "No." The White Paper is still the policy of the Government. "Departed is the wrong name for what we have done; we have modified it slightly, or supplemented it, but we have not departed from the main principles. We still maintain them.
I have had some personal connection with this question of surplus stores for some time. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston will remember that, with me, he was a member of the Select Committee on National Expenditure. I was invited to be the chairman of the subcommittee which inquired into the then Government's scheme for the disposal of surplus stores. Natur-


ally, the Select Committee examined the matter with the most critical eye possible, believing at that time that the Government were not proceeding quickly enough to get rid of what was even then a tremendous problem. In connection with these investigations, I had to read the reports of what happened after the last war. I assure the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) that if he went into the scandals that took place after the last war, he would be the last person on earth to stand up here, and defend that kind of system—

Sir W. Darling: Was the scandal that they made profits? Is that the scandal?

Mr. Woodburn: Oh no.

Sir W. Darling: There was no court scandal.

Mr. Woodburn: Nobody here objects to people making a reasonable profit, but when they conduct rackets at the expense of the general public, that is a different matter altogether. The scandals were worse then than those described by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown). As a result of the publicity given to Great Missenden, some people have been out there trying to bribe with £50, the men guarding the cars at Great Missenden to allow them into the dump, as it is called. The public have to be guarded against the thugs, as the hon. Member for Rugby called them. I think the hon Member for South Edinburgh is making a mistake in trying to defend them. The Select Committee went into the whole question. It explained in its report that the Government's policy at that time was to secure a proper distribution of surplus stores to the public advantage, and the avoidance of the scandals which accompanied the disposal of such stores after the last war. Whether or not the scheme requires modification, can only be seen after it has started to work. Now, it so happens that fate has placed on me special responsibility for carrying out the policy regarding surplus stores. I have had to inquire into it from the Government angle, and I must say that I feel great pride in the way that the machine has worked. It is true that the hon. Member for South Edinburgh has not seen it working, or heard it working. He thinks, because no noise is going on, that nothing has been

done. I would remind him that a Rolls Royce makes very little noise, and a "tin lizzie "makes a great deal. This scheme has been working very much like a Rolls Royce so that nobody has noticed it.

Sir W. Darling: Are there no blankets in Olympia?

Mr. Woodburn: Oh yes. Blankets are being distributed to the public. I shall come to that in a moment. As I was saying, this was the policy initiated in the Coalition Government. it was the policy adopted for the safeguarding of all the points of view raised in the House. Nobody had been able to suggest a wiser or better policy. Having had experience of its working, it is true that the Minister on Saturday announced a modification in regard to certain surplus vehicles. Here I would like to say to the hon. Member for Holland with Boston that my right hon. Friend had not the slightest intention of being discourteous in regard to this Debate. This is a matter which has been engaging the attention not only of the Minister, but of the Cabinet itself, for some time. This policy was decided upon, and the Minister did consider whether the hon. Member might think it a discourtesy if he made his announcement before this Debate. We took the view that the announcement should be made at the earliest possible moment, and that the hon. Gentleman would not object to its being speeded up.

Mr. Butcher: May I offer my con gratulations on the step being taken at the earliest opportunity? I have no feelings in the matter at all.

Mr. Woodburn: I thank the hon. Member. If I proceed to describe the problems that exist, I think all the points raised by hon. Members will arise as I go along, and I shall deal with them. The principle is that the Forces declare their surpluses. Here we come to the first difficulty. The Forces are beginning to know only now what they are going to need themselves for peacetime requirements. Therefore, the Forces have been in the position that, if they gave up things, they might require them later and might have to repurchase them. The result has been a tendency for the Forces to throw up vehicles that were quite obviously down and out, and ready for the scrap heap. The system adopted in


regard to these vehicles was adopted in agreement with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. That society agreed with us that they would take the vehicles as they came along. They, in turn, sent them to garages and factories where engineers were employed repairing them. However, as the worstvehicles came through first, the garages were clogged up with vehicles that took a large number of labour hours to repair, with the result that the machine was bound not to work smoothly at the beginning. Now, I am glad to say, that scheme is working muchmore quickly, and there is the possibility that the motor traders and manufacturers will be able to make the supply of vehicles flow to the public at a much greater rate. I would caution hon. Members not to expect a great number of motor cars. There is adistinction between motor vehicles and motor cars. Many of the things in these dumps which are being described as cars have no relation to motor cars. Relatively speaking, the number of motor cars is a very small one, and the number of cars fit for people to run is still smaller.
I deal, first of all, with the breakdown dumps. The hon. Member for West Willes-den (Mr. Viant) reported to me a place at Willesden where cars had been broken up which were reported to him as having been in good condition. I at once invited the hon. Member to go with me and examine the matter on the spot. We went round the whole place and at the end the hon. Member agreed with me that there was not one car being broken up there which was of use for anything but the scrap heap. It isa question whether we ought to spend as much labour as we are spending, even in breaking them up, at this moment, for the scrap heap. A large number of cars which we see throughout the country are of no use and only good for the scrap heap. Other vehiclesare of no use for civilian purposes at all. There are cars which take so much petrol, and carry so little weight, that it would be a crime to sell them to a civilian user. There may be a few odd people who have to climb the Grampian hills, and who might find a use for them, but the average consumer could not use them. It would be putting a liability upon him to sell him one of these vehicles
A great many of the dumps are not dumps in the sense that the same cars are there permanently. I went to one near

Edinburgh, about which a complaint had been made. I found that instead of being a cemetery for cars, it was a place where cars were coming in at one end and going out at the other. All round the city of Edinburgh men were employed in garages putting these cars in order, so that they could be put back into service with the Army, sent to U.N.R.R.A., or disposed of on the public market. When the question of Park Hatch was raised, it was brought to my notice as such a serious matter that I invited the Director of Disposals in my Ministry to go with me personally to Park Hatch to examine this-apparent scandal. What happened was that one day a road was blocked; a tree fell across the road and as a result the police asked the fire master in charge of the Depot whether the road through the estate could be used by the general public. Because of that my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) had the privilege of riding through the estate in the midst of cars. But the place was under guard—

Earl Winterton: I do not want to deal with a personal incident. I am not controverting what the hon. Gentleman says. I must not, of course, reveal a conversation I had with the Leader of the House. I pointed out and he accepted it that there was no one on guard at all. There were no men stationed there, the road was not blocked. Cars were out in the road with no one guarding them.

Mr. Woodburn: Well, of course, that is different information, because the fire-master in charge had been told the circumstances,and had given his permission, but the right hon. Gentleman could see no reason why the public were inside the park. The fire master gave me the reason that the police had approached him, because the road had been blocked by a tree, as a result of which traffic was allowed to come through, and so people were able to see the cars; otherwise, nobody was allowed inside the park. That is the information I got and I can-only give it as I received it. The hon. Member for Guildford (Sir J. Jarvis) raised the matter, and I have replied to him by saying that this is a Fire Service depot, and I understand from my right hon. Friend that these Fire Service depots are required as centres for collecting all sorts of fire brigade material which is given up, and that it is necessary to


maintain a stock of this material until the brigades are re-established. Unless something of the kind was done, the brigades would not be able to get replacements until industry is revived. Therefore, for some time, these depots will require to be maintained. In regard to cars, all I can say is that we are removing these to be disposed of for scrap as quickly as possible, as well as those which are to be reconditioned. A general movement is taking place.

Earl Winterton: May I ask the hon. Gentleman one question? Has any punishment been imposed upon the persons responsible, in the first instance, for leaving these vehicles, which the hon. Gentleman has now admitted, and leaving them unprotected in every way? Will he look into that?

Mr. Woodburn: There cannot be any question of this Government's responsibility; the Government which was responsible is no longer the Government. This was a Government responsibility and they had to decide whether to use space for factories or for storage of vehicles, and whether to destroy the vehicles or take the risk of their being destroyed, in order to get a factory started, and that Government, for good or ill, made the decision that they must get industry started and took the risk with the cars because there was no space available to house them as well.
There are at present 41,000 vehicles in the country, but that figure includes 12,500 cycles. The problem is whether to use labour in repairing these cars. It takes more skilled engineering labour to repair cars than to build new cars, and we took the view that there could be no justification for using factories, which could build new cars for export which would pay for food, in order to repair cars which, when repaired, would probably not be much good on the road and might be a danger. Therefore, we decided against using labour to repair cars, and, rather than use labour in that way, we were prepared to leave the cars where they were if they were not in a sufficiently good condition to be ready for use.
The question of safety has been raised. One of the reasons for this scheme was that, through the manufacturers and traders, they could be put into condition

so as to be safe for the roads, whereas we could give no guarantee. This, I agree, is a most importantquestion, and, in view of the public disquiet, and in view of the fact that there are a large number of small people with garages—little engineers and soldiers coming back who have an engineering shop of a small kind—we have authorised these people to purchase cars in the normal way and take them away and repair them in their own time and make them available for the road. Most of us are familiar with the small garages where men work on cars when there is no profitable work coming in, and many of these garages might be used for that purpose. It is for this reason that the Minister has agreed to the sale.
May I make a few observations about this auction sale? Yesterday, about 5,000 people turned up at Great Missenden, some having come as far as200 miles. Some of them broke through the fences. A great strain was put on the people in charge of the park in maintaining order and keeping things within their control. Therefore, I would say to the House and to the public that there is no possibility of these cars being sold until the beginning of May. For some time before that they will be on view, but, at the present time, probably nobody who goes to a place of that kind will be able to see the cars in the way they ought to see them if they are going to purchase them. Everybody will get a proper opportunity, when once the cars are catalogued and put in proper order, and I ask the public to wait a further period before they rush to Great Missenden. Yesterday was not a very pleasant day, and, if next Sunday is pleasant, there is no saying what numbers might come.

Sir W. Darling: The hon. Gentleman wants customers, does he not? Get rid of the stuff.

Mr. Woodburn: This is a very important point. There are no skilled technicians to examine these cars and say in what sort of order they are. When the sale takes place, it will take place with the cars as they are, and the Minister can offer no guarantee that any car can be driven away from the field under its own power. Any person who purchases a car there, must be prepared to take petrol and see whether the car can be driven, and, if not, must be prepared


to tow it from the field The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Holland with Boston, who asked whether we were prepared to put them on rail if peoplepurchased cars is rather an important one, and I will have it examined. I could not give a reply at the moment, but it is a constructive suggestion and I will have it looked into, because it is a problem how these cars are to be taken away from the field.We are prepared to do a great deal to help, and it will be a big effort of administration to organise this sale. We have been fortunate in that the Auctioneers' Society have recommended first-class people to deal with it, and they will deal with it promptly. We have already had attempts at bribery and attempts at breaking in, and it would be much wiser if his business was done in an orderly and proper way. There are 2,500 of these vehicles reserved for the Ministry of War Transport, and U.N.R.R.A. and for sale to our Allies. There are 4,500 trucks and lorries, and only 700 cars many of which will not be in good condition,' so that there is quite an exaggerated idea as tothe number of cars available, There is a great number of trucks and lorries, some of which will be very serviceable. We will try to arrange the sale in such a way as to suit purchasers. We have sold 300 cars since the 1st January—cars, trucks and lorries.
May I be excused for making reference to the city of Leeds canteen? It was handed over to as in order that it should be sent, with these other vehicles, to U.N.R.R.A., and it is being used today as a canteen in the park for the personnel guarding and locking after the storage of these vehicles, and I think the people of Leeds will bequite pleased to know that it is not being misused and that the Minister has said today that, if they want it back, it will be handed back to them.

Earl Winterton: Has the Minister been able to fulfil all the vehicle requirements of U.N.R.R.A., because this is a humanitarian question of great magnitude? Has he supplied U.N.R.R.A. with all the vehicles required?

Mr. Woodburn: No. Any number of new demands are coming in. We are doing our best, and we have reserved and taken over very large quantities of stores, which will help further with this great problem. Many of these vehicles are going to U.N.R.R.A. There will be no doubt

about our doing all we can with regard to U.N.R.R.A. If I might revert to the safety point for one moment, I would like to make it clear that a person who takes a car on to the road is responsible for its being in proper order. Since we are not going through the manufacturers and traders, we have no method of ensuring a vehicle's road worthiness, and the person purchasing it must accept the responsibility.
Returning to the soft goods, we have a scheme with the Textile Corporation and another great organisation. The initials are R.S.C.M.A., but I am not sure what they stand for. I believe it is -a clothing association—

Sir W. Darling: It stands for "Ready-made Clothing Merchants Corporation."

Mr. Woodburn: In any case, there are two great organisations formed by members of the trade to take surplus clothing and textiles from us and they dispose of them through the trade. In other words, we have adopted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that we should use the capitalist system. We hand the goods over to them and give them a reasonable profit. This arrangement has been working so successfully that we have already disposed of over 19 millions of these goods of various kinds to the different organisations. Some have gone to U.N.R.R.A., some to the textile corporations and a great number have now reached the general public. We also have a great number more which are sold by the ton. Over one thousand tons of oilskins and 700 tons of wiping rags have gone to U.N.R.R.A., and 1,500 tons to the Wool Control for making new clothes. We hold about 44,000 tons and 7,000 tons are already out to tender. In addition we have over 1,000 tons some of which is going to the Wool Control and some will be disposed of through depots. We are making a slight modification in dealing with these goods because where there are small lots all over the country we shall no longer bring them to the centre, but allow them to be sold on the spot if that does not interfere with the normal trade.

Mr. W. J. Brown: These figures are very interesting, but I would ask my hon. Friend to explain a concrete problem. Here is an industry from which the Government took all its sheets, blankets and pillow cases, and so on. Do the


Government recognise the moral obligation of replacing that stuff in order to enable the industry to get going again and, if they do, when are they going to give the industry the material?

Mr. Woodburn: All I can say, as the hon. Gentleman knows is that the Government are very interested in the question of providing holiday camps, hotels and boarding houses with the necessary materials with which to restart business. These surpluses do not exist in such quantities as people seem to think, and they are not sufficient to supply all the needs Therefore, it is only as surpluses become available that they can be disposed of to industry and to holiday camps, and so on.

Mr. Brown: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but the President of the Board of Trade made a statement as recently as last Thursday or Friday in which he told us what the maximum allocation of these soft goods was which he was prepared to make to this particular industry. I say that that allocation in relation to the requirements of the industry is insignificant and cannot be compared with what the Government took away from it.

Mr. Woodburn: The point is that the Government took these goods away from the industry for use by the Army, Navy and Air Force and they have been used. During this war the Forces have been kept so short of materials that the surpluses which were available after the last war do not exist today. The President of the Board of Trade said, in effect, that that wasall he could fairly give to that particular organisation because of the claims of other organisations. I think the hon. Gentleman had better approach the President of the Board of Trade himself, and I am sure he will do as much as he can, in fairness to all other sections of the community, in giving the hon Gentleman what he requires. Soldiers coming home who wish to set up house need sheets, pillows and other things of that kind and we have also to supply U.N.R.R.A. and our Allies who are in desperate straits. We sent a lot of pillows abroad, some of which the people here would not have purchased but which were gratefully received abroad.
We have departed from some of our schemes in other respects as well. In

regard to valves we must send them back through the makers because if there are radio valves which are not properly tested the public might be swindled. In regard to radio sets we have already sold over 100,000 of these and we are going to put 174,000 watches on the market. Tenders are already out to the trade, to shopkeepers and others, and these goods will be arranged in small lots so that small people can buy them, and we are endeavouring to make a fair geographical distribution. Although we are making these arrangements, we are not departing from those made with the trade. We are merely trying to supplement them, and if the trade is working too slowly we are prepared to go to the public direct.

Mr. Benn Levy: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether a controlled price will be placed on the resale of these goods?

Mr. Woodburn: My right hon. Friend has made a Statutory Order fixing the price at which these goods can be sold to the public. Tenders will be accepted, but the price to the public must be at a particular rate. I think I have dealt with all the points raised; that deals with the question of the controlled price. With regard to cars it is a question as to whether someone can make use of them. If they can, we do not propose to deprive them of the opportunity. The question of price does not matter in regard to cars because if the motor trade cannot use them and some small person can make use of them we are prepared that they should have the opportunity of reconditioning them. As hon. Members know, General Lindsell has been asked by the President of the Board of Trade and the Government to speed up this business and to co-ordinate activity between the different Ministries.
I have, of course, only dealt with the matters for which our Ministry is primarily responsible, but I can assure the House that the scheme which was drawn up by the Coalition Government and which was looked into by the Select Committee has worked well on the whole, and I think hon. Members will agree that there has been very little trouble about it. I do not deny that mistakes have been made and, of course, mistakes will be made in any huge undertaking of this kind but, on the whole, every section of the community and every


section of the Government have worked smoothly together. The proper machinery has been established and is working satisfactorily, both from the point of view of the public and that of the State. The State desires to recover some of the cost of these things for the benefit of the general taxpayer and from the point of view of the community that is a good thing.

Mr. Butcher: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the disposal of surplus stores through the motor manufacturers and traders will go on at the same time as the auctions?

Mr. Woodburn: The Minister met the Society of Motor Traders lastweek and discussed this scheme with them, and they are willing that this method should be adopted in regard to the type of vehicles for which they are not prepared to take responsibility. I am sure that a supplementary method of this sort will be welcomedby everyone. It takes a great deal of labour to dismantle and recondition vehicles and there is not that labour in the country, but to the best of their ability the Government will clear these fields of cars and get rid of the cluttering up of factory space which is at present taking place in many parts of the country.
There is one point which I did not mention. It is a very important point. It is the question of machine tools. The Government have as their main policy with regard to machine tools, the re-equipping of British industry. It is true - that the Government want to recover some money, but their main purpose is to try to persuade the British engineering industry to modernise itself and bring itself up to date. Therefore, with that end in view, we are offering machine tools at very reasonable rates. For example, a Webster and Bennett high power boring and turning mill, the current price of which new is £1,240, is being offered at £616. A Kearns horizontal borer, the new price of which is £1,459, is offered at £750. A Cincinatti radial arm drilling machine, the American price of which is £1,050, is offered at £510. We are doing that with the object of inducing engineering firms not only to purchase new machines for new works, but to get the old machines out of the works and to bring the industry up to date.
Anything we can do to assist the engineering industry to equip itself will be done, and the method by which this is done is as follows. First of all, if a firm is taking over a factory in which the machine is situated it gets the first offer of the machine at a price settled. If on the other hand it does not want the machine and is leaving the factory, any new firm going into the factor' will have the next offer. After that the machine is offered to the general public. Then we may have auctions" of some of these machines, and try to speed up the distribution of them in some way. Those not sold will be brought to central stores and will be open to examination by the general public. This scheme is working very well, we have had several big sales which have been very successful. We hope the engineering industry will take advantage of the opportunity offered at this time to re-equip itself, so that we can start on the policy of expanding exports with every facility and with the necessary tools to do the job.

Orders of the Day — CONTROL COMMISSION, GERMANY (ADMINISTRATION)

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Rees-Williams: I wish to raise the question of the Control Commission in Germany with special reference to the subject of recruitment. Before I commence to do so, I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for coming here at what, I fear, was short notice. I am sure it must have been very inconvenient to him.
Up to July last, Germany was in all our minds, and most of our activities were devoted either to destroying her or, in the last couple of months, to seeing that she was not in a position to reassert herself and commence fighting once more. Since then, Germany seems to have gone out of most of our thoughts. I think tonight is the first time that Germany has been debated on the Floor of this House since this Parliament met. Three or four years ago one would never have imagined a situation such as that. I would remind the House that a few years after the end of the last war, Brigadier-General Morgan, who was then in a position somewhat similar to that of my hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in regard to Germany, likened


Germany to a blinded Samson preparing to grasp the pillars of the Temple in his arms and to pull down that Temple about his head, the Temple being European civilisation. I would remind the House also that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bromley (Mr. H. Macmillan) said quite recently that he thought it was possible that Germany would be like a courtesan offering her favours to the highest bidder. Therefore, we cannot envisage Europe without Germany in some position to take up her life again. At the same time, we cannot envisage Europe with Germany able to take up her military life again, so that, in some way or other, we must ensure that Germany is put into a position of being able to play a part in the economic and political life of Europe, without at the same time playing a part in the military life of Europe. In other words, we cannot allow Germany to be filled with a lot of half starved, miserable wretches, with no outlook whatsoever, no hope in the future and no feasible life in the present.
I cannot help thinking that part of our trouble has been caused by the fact that towards the end of the war we ignored the rule of law. This rule of law had been built up for centuries by civilised peoples. It had been built up on the basis of Christianity and the principles of chivalry. it had been built up by the customs and usages of great commanders, and finally it was embodied in statutory form in various conventions, one of which is the Hague Convention and another is the Geneva Convention. We have retained the Geneva Convention which deals adequately with prisoners of war—all sides did during the last European war—but the Hague Convention, which deals mainly with the treatment of civilians in occupied territory, we have hardly acknowledged at all. Our troubles now, at all events, have been intensified by our neglect of that convention and the usages and customs upon which it is based. The neglect of a moral law will always mean that at some time or other the person who neglects it will suffer. Our neglect of this moral law—I mean the Allies as a whole, and not just this Government—is having great consequences today, and will have greater consequences as the years go on.
One of the consequences is that, as a result of the various conferences between the Big Three, we have this absurd system

of zones in Germany. If I might liken it to the United Kingdom, it is as if this country were divided from North of Northumberland to Scotland, taking in all of Scotland, as one zone; South from Northumberland to the Isle of Wight, two zones—one East and one West—and a fourth zone being carved out of the middle of it, say Berkshire and Wiltshire, each of these zones being given to a separate occupying Power, and London itself being carved into four zones—three parts being fairly equal, and Putney and Wimbledon being hacked out to be given to the fourth occupying Power. That is a system which would be difficult in any case to work, but it was just possible, as it was originally contemplated to work it because it was assumed that there would be German administrative ministries at the head in Berlin, through whom orders of the Control Council would pass, and that these orders would go down through the ordinary German machine to the four zones and would have an equal effect. As it turns out, it is like four engines running without a governor, because no ministries have been set up. Thus every Power feeds in its orders in its own separate zone at different levels in the way in which it thinks those orders should be interpreted.
There is no central direction whatever as regards the German side of the administration. In the Russian zone they work very largely on a land, or state, basis. There is a zonal government, but I am told it is not effective as yet. In the American zone they have tried to set up political governments in various Lande, which are the equivalent of states, as opposed to the Federal Government. An instance can be seen in Bavaria. Of course they have been set up much too early. The Germans are not yet in a position to take those responsibilities on themselves. We in our zone are dealing with the matter in what is probably the best possible method. We have only gone as far as provincial government as yet, dealing in our area through the provincial governments, but watching their instructions as they go down through the various local authorities, ensuring that the orders are carried out.
Those duties impose immense responsibility on the Control Commission officers responsible. It would be a very great responsibility if German ministries


for administrative purposes were set up and one could work down through them, the officers on the spot merely watching to see whether the orders were being carried out. When the orders have to be fed into the administrations in the zone, it does involve a responsibility which had never been contemplated. One expects that officers performing that duty would be men of first class calibre. One might say: What about the Germans themselves? Is it necessary to have very important people as Military Government officers and Control Commission officers when the German authorities are there? At the moment the German authorities have no backing whatever as political entities. Their only authority comes from the fact that they have been appointed by the Military Government. If we were to leave Germany today the same thing would happen as when we left the last time. After the last occupation we finally marched out of the Rhineland in 1927, namely,nine years after we went in. As our troops marched out from one end of the town or village the German officials were chased out of the other end. If we walked out today no doubt the same thing would happen.
Who are these people, these officers who have this immense power? There are 23 million Germans for whom my hon. Friend is responsible. To control them he has 6,456 officers. No one can say that is too many. Of those officers, 4,129 are military officers and 2,327 are civilian officers. The military officers were recruited mainly as volunteers. The civilians, of course, had to be advertised for in various ways during the war. As I remember only too well, it was almost impossible to get men of the right calibre to go out to Germany. One can imagine that local authorities were not at all anxious to release men of first-class ability to go out to a foreign land for an unknown period. Therefore, without wishing to be in any way unfair to these officers, who have done their best and done a good job, one can say that they are not in all cases of first class calibre. One could not expect them to be. That does not stop us from getting the best men in now, and that is the main purpose of my raising this subject this evening. There is no reason why we should not get first class men today.
I have written to my hon. Friend and asked him for and obtained a copy of the

terms which are offered to civilians who desire to take on service with the Control Commission. Paragraph 2 of Appendix A of the "Conditions of Service and Condition of Personnel Manual, 1945," says:
 Probationary period. New appointments (but not extensions of existing appointments) will be subject to a probationary period of three months. Officers whose services it is not desired to retain, and whose appointments have not yet been confirmed, may be given one month's notice, after which their engagements will terminate. If serving abroad they will be provided with free travel to the United Kingdom.
That is very generous. Paragraph 3 says:
 Employment and termination.—Officers may be required to serve in Germany or in Austria or in any office of the Control Service in the United Kingdom. The appointments will be employment under the Crown and subject to general regulations applicable to the home Civil Service, and may be terminated at any time: (a) on grounds of misconduct, inefficiency or unsatisfactory service, or (6) in the event of the officer's services no longer being required on grounds of redundancy (which may arise from either the cessation or the reduction of the work on which the officer is employed). All posts will be unestablished and will carry no right to permanent appointment or to pension or superannuation allowance. For compensation on termination of appointment on grounds of redundancy, see the next paragraph.
There is a small compensation, which depends upon how much of the officer's term is unexpired. It descends from 12 months, when there are five years unexpired, to three months, when there is a very short time unexpired. Can one imagine that those terms are going to attract really first-class men? The position of many professional men now coming out of the Army is this. They have been in the Army for five or six years, and they have to look forward to a period of anything up to seven years, if found suitable and if not redundant, in the Control Commission. Then what? It means that at the age of 43 or 45 they will come back to this country and find it very difficult to get any employment whatsoever. They will find it very difficult to live in the conditions which will then prevail.
No terms have been published to the public so far as I know. Possibly this is the reason, because the terms are not such as will induce the type of man we want in the Control Commission to go in. It is not that the pay and allowances are not good; I think they are very good.
It is not that they are not going to have a more comfortable time than they would have in England; I think they will have a more comfortable time. It is because there is nocontinuity. The young professional man of the type we want feels that at any moment he may be thrown out of the service on the ground of redundancy—and in any case he will come out at the end of five or seven years without a pension or gratuity, oranything of that kind. Therefore it is just not worth it. I can assure the Minister that I have had numerous cases of officers who have served very well in Germany on the military side of the Commission, men who know the work from "A" to "Z" and who would be excellent men for the Minister's purpose. They will not come into the civil side because of this uncertainty.
I suggest that the remedy my hon. Friend should adopt is, that he should develop a civil service for Germany on exactly the same basis as the Civil Service in this country. We will have to garrison Germany for at least 25 years. We may as well make up our minds about that. Owing to the fact that we have neglected the rule of law, owing to the fact that we have this absurd zonal system and even then hampered it by not having the German ministries working, owing to the fact that Germany is now, and will be as far as we can see, mainly populated by half starved wretches, we will have to garrison Germany for 25 years. That is our penalty. That is what it costs ourselves and our Allies for taking the action we have done. Therefore, we must face the fact that we want a civil service in Germany on civil service lines. If my hon. Friend does that he can get good men to go out there.
I would remind him, as no doubt he knows only too well, that the actual soldiers who garrison Germany are of very little use in running the country from the administration point of view. They do not know the language; they do not know German affairs; they do not know the administrative systems and so on Therefore, they are there to provide bayonets; they are not there to provide brains. We must also have the other type of person. I see that some of my hon. Friends on this side of the House would

like to develop other points in connection with this matter, and I do not want to detain the House any longer, but I do urge the hon. Gentleman most strongly that this is an urgent matter which cannot wait for any Treasury sanction or anything of that kind. The salaries of these people in any case will come out of the German exchequer. They are a first charge on the reparations payments, in fact, on the ordinary day to day taxation receipts of Germany, so that the usual bugbear of the Chancellor of the Exchequer need not apply in this case.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Edelman: My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) has done an extremely valuable service in raising this evening the vitally important question of the Control Commission and the future of Germany. Here I would like to pay tribute to the work of the Control Commission and of Allied Military Government, and of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In his treatment of the question of Germany, in his attitude towards the Germans and in his fulfilment of the task of administration, my hon. Friend has shown himself to be a most able administrator, who has won the admiration of all those who have been in contact with him. I have had a very brief opportunity in my capacity as a journalist of seeing him at work in Berlin, and I would like to say that, in carrying out his tasks, he had the affection and regard of the Germans whom he helped to govern as much as of the Britons who were his colleagues.
The point I wish to emphasise this evening is that the Control Commission, and Allied Military Government, are today doing a task for which they were not designed. We remember how, during the war, as the troops moved forward G.5, or Civil Affairs, or Military Government moved up behind in order to carry out the transitional task of government, a transitional task which lasted as long as there was no civil administration of the people whose territory was temporarily occupied. The officers who were entrusted with the administration were people who very often had only had brief specialised courses in the conduct of civil affairs; they had had short and intensive periods of study on how to run a town and how to administer its public offices. They were qualified to deal with the immediate tasks


of administration but were incapable of acting as long-term administrators. The whole question of the long-term administration of any country has always rested, and will always rest, in the hands of the trusted representatives of the country to be administered. In North Africa it was the French; in Italy it ultimately became the Italians; and in Germany it will have to be the Germans.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon referred to the very small number of British officers and civilian officers who are responsible today for administering the affairs of Germany, and I emphasise the word "administering," because it is quite clear that so small a number of officers cannot possibly administer effectively the affairs of 23 million Germans. Obviously, during the period of control, this small corps of officers can effectively supervise the aministration of the country and see to it that the Germans who are carrying on the administration are doing so in a way approved by the occupying authority; but it should be beyond their function to engage in the actual duties of administration, duties which they appear to be trying to perform today. A great weakness of the administration at the present time is that we are not making an adequate use of Germans in carrying out the day to day tasks of local self-government. I suggest that not only should we raise the pact of absorbing Germans into the organs of local administration, but that we also try, as far as possible, to send to Germany those prisoners of war who have been examined and who have passed through courses of re-education such as are being given so efficiently at Wliton Park in Beconsfield.
At Beconsfield there is a school for the re-education of Germans. The men have been drawn from prisoner of war cages. They have been examined, roughly at first by means of a questionnaire and later in greater detail, and have proved themselves willing and suitable to go back to Germany to serve as a spearhead of democracy. They are not traitors who have sold themselves for money to this country, but people who are genuinely convinced that the way to Germany's regeneration is through democracy. I would respectfully suggest to my hon. Friend that, in consultation with the War Office, he should consider extending this system of camps for the re-education of German prisoners of war, and should

accelerate the shipment back to Germany of such men. There have been times when at Ascot, where there was a similar prisoner of war camp, and at Beconsfield, there have been large numbers of prisoners of war waiting in idleness for unduly long periods before being returned to Germany. I suggest that their return should be speeded up and that, when they do get back to Germany, they should not be lost sight of, but should be encouraged to take part in the organs of local administration. Even if they do not do so, even if the cobbler merely goes back to being a cobbler in his native village, if the worker merely goes back to being a factory hand and the peasant merely returns to till the soil near his own village, I feel that they will be infectious examples. Their example will be infectious in the very best way; they will form small centres of democracy which will steadily enlarge themselves by a process of attraction.
I feel, furthermore, that the Control Commission and Military Government in Germany have not got an adequate number of officers, qualified by experience, to engage in the task both of de-Nazification and of seeing to it that those Germans who obtain appointments in the German administration and in local government are best qualified as anti-Nazis to create the sort of Germany which we hope to see emerge. We have at the present time only two British trade union officials who have gone to Germany as industrial advisers. We have only two men in the whole of the Northern area who have gone there to act as advisers on manpower, on the selection of industrial supervisors, and to recommend on the problems of German industry. We have only two in the whole of Northern Germany. I feel it most important that we should, as rapidly as possible, develop the system of labour attaches which the Foreign Secretary has so effectively introduced into some of our embassies abroad. But I suggest that the system of labour attaches should be applied rather differently in Germany. I feel that right at the top level we should have a labour attache who is qualified to advise on matters concerning the direction of German industry; and under him, at the various levels—at the zone level, at the regional level, and, ultimately, at the town and even the village level—there should be labour attaches, men drawn


from the labour movement in this country.
I use the term" labour movement "not in any Party sense, but in a political sense. I use it in a political sense to mean people drawn from the working classes in this country, men who are anti-Nazi by their deepest convictions, and who will have a natural sympathy with the German working classes in the areas where their advice is so badly needed. I know that the work of de-Nazification in the British zone has recently accelerated but there are very frequently cases reported of individuals who still retain their industrial posts who would be detected and, I hope, cleared out if there were labour attaches of the kind I suggest. I hope very much that my hon. Friend will consult rather more closely than he appears to have done with the T.U.C. in order to increase rapidly the number of labour advisers, who will be appointed, perhaps, by the recommendation of theT.U.C., but who certainly will have as their major qualification that they are anti-Nazi and, also, understand the working people who in all countries have fundamental affinities.
I should like to turn from that to the general question of political parriesin Germany. It is clear that political parties can only be tolerated if they are basically anti-Nazi. We have allowed parties to grow up in our zone and that is all to the good. But I feel that the most effective expression of democracy which will have any value at the present time is through the German trade unions. I hope that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will give even more encouragement to the growth of zone trade unions than he has done in the past. In these trade unions, which, for the present, are merely shadows of trade unions, there are representatives of all the political parties who are united by one fundamental sympathy; they are anti-Nazi and they want to see a democratic Germany emerge. I feel we shall do much better by encouraginga virile trade union movement in our zone than we shall by trying to foster any particular political party. I feel that genuine political parties, which have the same status as our own in this country, can emerge genuinely in Germany only when we have decided on the ultimate, unified form of Germany.
At the present moment, there is a most indecent competition going on between the Social Democrat leaders in the Russian zone, who are very largely under Russian influence, and the Social Democrat leadersin our own zone. It is clear that as long as political parties may be subject to the pressure of the occupying Power they cannot emerge as the free, independent political parties which we all hope that they may ultimately be. In Berlin, for example, we know that today there is an intense agitation from the Communist Party for fusion with the Social Democrats. One cannot help feeling that if the occupying Power is giving preferential access to any one party for propaganda purposes, for purposes of holding meetings, and for purposes of carrying on political activities generally, we cannot have free political parties. Therefore, I would suggest that we for our part in our zone, instead of trying to compete in this unattractive scramble for the favours of the political parties, concentrate our attentions on the development of free, democratic trade unions.
In order to achieve that, there is one thing which we must do. We must give the German trade unions, if they are to be real and not merely puppets, some opportunity for bargaining. I know that for the time being we cannot give the German trade unions any power which would allow them to withdraw their labour in a case of dispute, but I do suggest that we can give them the power to concern themselves with their general conditions of work, which is, after all, one of the fundamental functions of a, trade union. We could give them power, if not to bargain on the question of wages, at least to advise on wages. Today the statute which governs the wages of German workers is still the statute—it might have been changed, perhaps, in verbal form, but basically it is still the statute—which the Nazis fixed. Consequently, I do feel that we will give the trade unions a greater sense of that genuine, democratic independence which we want to encourage in Germany if we extend to them the rights and opportunities of bargaining.
As the Ruhr is our particular concern, I would also suggest that in the Ruhr, where we have such great support from the Germans locally, we should declare our policy at the earliest possible time. Are we in favour of the internationalisa-tion of the Ruhr economically? Are we


in favour of its intemationalisation economically and politically? We should declare our intentions as soon as possible in order that those who administer industry in the Ruhr may know what to expect in the future and for what they should work. After all, how can one expect a factory manager, whether he is a German or a member of the Military Government or a supervisor from the Control Commission, to develop the industry for which he is responsible in a rational and planned way if he does not know what his target of production is to be—if he does not know what he is working for or what the future of the industrial unit is to be? We should, at the earliest possible moment, declare exactly what our intentions are with regard to the Ruhr.
Finally, I would speak of the ultimate form which Germany should take. At the present time we have a "cannibalised" Germany. It is a Germany which has been mutilated in the East, the West, and in the South—torn into zones which have no correspondence to local feeling, strategy or economic needs. In order to relieve ourselves of the severe burden of occupation, and from keeping occupation troops in Germany for the next 25 years, we must aim at bringing about a unified German State, which will not be powerful enough to be a menace to the rest of the world, but which will be sufficiently strong economically to be able to feed its inhabitants. It must be a unified State in which there will be central administration for such things as posts and telegraph, and railways, and those other functions of a civilised State.
In order to bring about the right balance between restraining Germany's potentially expanding strength and the desirability of unification, we should encourage the formation of a Confederated State. Together with the Russians, the Americans and the French, we could encourage such a State in which there could be a large measure of regional self-government, corresponding, up to a point, to the present system of zoning, which would not enable a great monolithic State, such as was the Third Reich, to emerge again. With this target in view, we should assume the responsibilitynow for preventing those grave calamities which threaten Germany today. We cannot allow the Germans to starve and become a centre of infection for the whole

of Europe. We have not only a moral responsibility. but a practical responsibility, to see that Germany is not allowed to be too strong, but, on the other hand she must have some economic standard, whereby she can live. If we can do that, we shall have discharged our duty, safeguarded our future and ensured that Europe, instead of being torn between two contenders for the material and political resources of Germany, will be unified. Only then will Germany be able to play a proper and useful part in a world at peace.

8.14 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot (Plymouth, Devon-port): I should like to begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) and the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) on raising this matter at this time. This Debate has been raised at very short notice, and, therefore, I hope that it will not prejudice theattempt, which many hon. Members have been making, to have a fuller Debate in this House on the problem of Germany. With all respect to those who order Debates in this House, I consider that it is something of a scandal that we have not discussed this matter at much greater length and with greater urgency than on this occasion. If this House refuses to debate this subject on many occasions this year, and next year, we shall find, in five years or 10 years' time, that we shall be debating nothing else. Therefore, it is necessary that we should be discussing this great German problem. I do not believe that this House recognises the extent of our responsibility in this matter. The other day I asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he could sayprecisely whose was the responsibility for introducing the ration cuts which had been imposed in Germany. I asked whether it was the responsibility of the Combined Food Board, or whether it was the responsibility of all the Governments involved in the direction of German affairs, or the responsibility of the British Government alone. The Chancellor replied, quite frankly, that the responsibility rested on him. He had to impose the cuts, and, therefore, responsibility for the imposition of the cuts rests clearly upon Members of this House.
We have responsibility for 23 million people, and a larger responsibility for the whole of Western Europe. I do not know


whether further details will be given to this House during this Debate, but, according to reports, within the first week of the latest food cuts, German production of coal has fallen by 10 per cent. I do not know whether the Minister has any later figures, but it is evident, if these cuts are to continue, or worsen, that production in the Ruhr Will collapse after the considerable efforts on the part of the Commission in recent months. The consequences of such a collapse will be felt all over Western Europe. They will be felt, not only in the British zone. The Dutch will not have power to drain their land and increase food production, and the French will not be able to extract sugar from beet. Therefore, I turn to the subject which the hon. Member for West Coventry dealt with in the last part of his speech.
The immediate problem is how we are to deal with the food situation in Germany. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us precisely what is the situation. There has been considerable confusion in the newspapers about the food position in Germany. We have had reports from Mrs. Roosevelt that everyone has plenty to eat, and contradictory reports from others who have returned from Germany. I hope that we can have some authoritative account from the Minister. A fortnight ago there were food cuts imposed in the British zone down to 1,014 calories. It hasbeen stated by the Control Commission, in Berlin, that probably after 20th March there will be a further cut down to 700 calories, or even less. The Minister has, I believe, largely confirmed these reports, and perhaps he will tell us "how many people will be involved in the British zone. Perhaps he will also tell us what evidence there is of food hoarding in Germany, and exactly what the situation is likely to be. There is a great danger of people imagining that if we can keep the food level at 1,014 calories, then all will be well. I consider that that is a wrong attitude. We must aim to get back at least to the ration of 1,500 calories, which was the ration before the last cut. Let us not forget that the existing ration in Germany is one third of our ration, and that if it falls to six or seven hundred calories, the people in Germany will be living on a quarter of the ration? provided for the people of this country.
What can be done to remedy this situation? First, I think we shall be grateful for any information which can be given by the Minister about the question of food from the Russian zone. We understand that approaches have been made in the past to the Soviet Government to ask them whether they would be willing to agree to some different method of allocating food throughout the whole of Germany. It is very hard that the British zone should have to bear the whole of this burden; because in prewar days the British zone produced only 50 per cent. of its own requirements, while the Soviet zone produced a surplus over its requirements. Surely there should be some saner method of arrangement than that we should have to send food from the British zone to Berlin to feed the British area there. There has been news in the last few days that the Russians have sent several tons of wheat to France. No one objects to that, but it is a very curious situation if food is being sent by the Russians to France when the Russians are in Austria where, for instance, the great mass of the people are living on possibly lower rations than those provided for the people of France. We hope that food is not to be used in Europe as a political weapon. A new effort ought to be made to get an allocation of food in Europe on a basis of human needs, disregarding politics altogether.

Mr. Austin: Does the hon.Gentleman's last implication mean that the people of Austria should get preference over the people of France in regard to food supplies, and that the people of Germany, an ex-enemy country, should get preference overthe people of India?

Mr. Foot: I am not suggesting that there should be a preference for Germany or Austria over other stricken countries in Europe. I am suggesting that it would be better for all the peoples of Europe if the allocation of food were made on the basis of human needs. So far as India is concerned, I am 100 per cent. in favour of using the most urgent measures for dealing with that tragic situation. If you are going to deal with the Indian situation and the European situation it is necessaryto have a proper world system for the allocation of food. I believe that if we are to argue out the whole business of how food is to be supplied on the basis of whether we are going to feed our ex-


enemies or not, we shall get into a mess and as a result enemies, friends and Allies alike, will all go down together.
Then there is the question of refugees coming into the British zone. It is ironic that the refugees coming into the British zone from the Eastern parts of Germany began to come in almost the same week as the latest food cuts were announced. I suggest that the methods by which these refugees have been despatched into Germany provide a clear and open breach of the Potsdam declaration, which laid down that transference of populations could onlytake place if it could be done in an orderly and human fashion. No one who has seen the eye-witness account given by a reporter in the '' Manchester Guardian," about a week ago, can doubt that this transference of population is not taking place in an orderly and humane fashion. It is a fact that, at the end of last year, many protests and representations were made by the British Government on this matter to the Polish Government and other Governments in Eastern Europe. I would like to know from the Minister whether any further protests have been made since this new invasion of the British zone started a few weeks ago. It is surely a grievous situation that we should have to feed new visitors to the British zone when there are not sufficient rations to feedthe persons there already.
We should not be content to think that this problem can be solved by what we do in Germany. We should consider what assistance can be given from this country. Statements have been made by responsible Ministers as to the food stocks which now exist in this country. A statement was made by the Prime Minister that the food stocks here on 31st December, 1945, amounted to 4,200,000 tons. Since that date, we have been told that there has been a decline which is due to seasonal arrangements, but we still have in this country well over 3,000,000 tons of food stocks. That is about three times the figure which was considered necessary in the period of peace just before the war. Three million tons was the figure to which food stocks in this country were raised at the beginning of the war when presumably the Government were making some attempt to guard this country against the dangers of blockade and U-boat warfare. Therefore, I believe that it would be

possible to provide from food stocks here something like 600,000 tons of food at least, without affecting the rations in this country at all, and without affecting the system of distribution. It would make a tremendous difference to the food situation in the British zone in Gernany duringthe next two or three months. We were told in one of the answers given by a Minister that in order to maintain rations in the British zone of Germany at the figure of 1,500 calories, which was the previous ration, it would be necessary to import into Germany something like 1,500,000 tons of wheat in the next six months. Therefore, if we are able to make a contribution of food—I do not say wheat alone—of something like 600,000 tons in the next two or three months, we could-possibly, by that act alone, save this desperate situation.
If the people of this country want to-do so, they should have the right to make voluntary contributions of food to be sent to Germany. It is wrong for any Government to deny the individual the right to help feed a fellow human being. This voluntary contribution could have an enormous psychological effect. Absurd, fantastic and dangerous rumours are spreading through the British zone in. Germany as to the reasons why this cut has been imposed. There have been rumours that the British have been refusing to send food to Germany. That is not the case. Britain has made great efforts to assist. They are also saying that food is being held here to build up stocks for another war. We know that to be absurd. But nothing can correct that kind of false rumour and create a. better psychological impression in Germany and throughout Western Europe, than if voluntary contributions of food are permitted from people in this country who feel that they have much more than they need to keep body and soul together and maintain a proper livelihood. It is vital that we should have in this House a. much clearer explanation than we have yet had of the system whereby world wheat supplies are allocated. We have had an enormous number of statements on this-subject, some of which are contradictory. We are told that when the Minister of Food returns from Washington we shall have a clearer statement. I am not asking; the hon. Gentleman to provide an answer tonight, but this is a matter which must be cleared up in this House. All these


matters are relevant and vital to the conduct of the affairs of the Control Commission, because that Commission cannot possibly do its job if there is to be a great spread of starvation and disease across Western Europe in the next two or three months.
The hon. Member for West Coventry referred to the political situation in Germany. This question of food unhappily does affect the political situation. No one can deny that there is a kind of political struggle going on in Germany at the present time. It was not a political struggle started by the British Government. I do not think that anyone in this country is to blame for it. I think that the initiative in starting this political straggle in Germany—and a dangerous one—was taken by the Russians. The Russians in the Soviet zone are using methods which we certainly could not applaud or approve in this country to force a fusion between the Communists and the Social Democratic Party. I believe the methods theyare using are methods which should be most strongly condemned by this country.
However, whether we like it or not there is this struggle going on. I hope that efforts will be made to get a common agreement between ourselves and Soviet Russia about these matters. I hope they will be overcome, but in the meantime the situation is that in the Russian zone the Russians are offering to the German people totalitarianism of a new kind on 1,500 calories or more, whereas we in the British zone, unhappily because ofour extremity, have to offer the beginnings of free speech and democracy on 500 calories. That is the choice provided for the people of Germany, and if that is the choice social democracy is going to suffer. I want to see us stand up for our rights and tomake the possibilities of social democracy in Western Germany real and definite. Therefore, in this interim period before a proper agreement is reached between us and our Soviet Allies, it is important that we should realise that if we do not send food toGermany, if we do not assist the British zone in Germany by a supply of food, it may have dangerous political consequences for the principles which we believe in and which this Government was elected to uphold. This whole problem is overcast by the vitaldecisions which were

taken at Potsdam and at earlier conferences. The decision to carve up and mutilate the Eastern frontiers of Europe has led to many of these disasters, and it was the decision of the Potsdam Conference that has made the work of the British Control Commission so difficult. In the Debate on the Potsdam Resolutions in this House last autumn, I claimed, with many others, that the Potsdam system was unworkable. I still think it is unworkable, and I am quite sure that history will proveit is unworkable. It is unworkable to suggest that 60,000,000 Germans are to be huddled together in a much smaller Reich, where they are deprived of the methods of organising their own life and providing their own sustenance. It is a hopeless proposition,and sooner or later it will have to be abandoned.
The first course and the right course for the Government to take, is to try to raise the whole question with our Soviet Allies so as to get a rewriting of the Potsdam decisions and programme rather than interpret a doctrine or a document which is unworkable in any case. We should try that first, but if we cannot get that then we have to recognise the fact" that it is better for us to realise the situation than to go on trying to work an unworkable settlement of Europe.
Finally, I would say to any Members of this House who think that these matters are unimportant that that was the same cry which was heard in the period before this war. We were told then that we need not worry about Europe, that it did not matter if Hitler rose to power in Europe, that it was no concern of ours. We see the same story printed today in the same newspapers which misled the people of this country before the war. They are the same people who tried to use the food scare a week or so ago to attack the Government instead of printing the facts about the world situation. Newspapers like the "Daily Mail" and the "Daily Express" were partly responsible for leading the British people to the beaches of Dunkirk. We should not accept their advice today. If we do so we shall find that in ten or 15 years we shall be faced with an even worse German problem than that which we had to solve by such terrible slaughter and through misery imposed on countless human beings in the past six years.

8.35 p.m.

Flight-Lieutenant. Crawley: I did not know that this Debate was to take place until a very short time ago, and I support all that the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) said about the short notice given. This is a very important subject and it is almost a scandal that extremely important matters like this should be dealt with in this manner. I support all that my hon. Friend said about the food shortage and the immediate urgency to give aid. In my view, this question of Germany isone of the tap roots of our foreign policy at the moment, and our foreign policy, particularly our relations with Russia, will be solved only when a real policy for Germany has been worked out. I urge the Minister to make life unbearable for his colleagues, until they evolve a policy, not only for the Ruhr but for all Germany.
I have only one important point to make tonight, and I shall do so in the form of a question. I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) when he said that the deNazification in the British zone was going on very fast. My own information is that although a tremendous improvement has been made in the last few weeks there is still a great deal to be done. I know that the Scrutineer Committees have beenset up, but I wonder whether the Minister can give us any information about the British zone, the number that exist now and how fully the whole system of scrutinising Germans in Germany by Germans is going to be implemented. Secondly, I should like to askhim whether news of the existence of these committees and the work that they are doing, has been given wide publicity in the German Press, because, besides the other difficulties experienced in the British zone, the fact that we failed to de-Nazify Germanyearlier on has had a tremendous effect on German influence as regards democracy as a whole. If these Scrutineer Committees are to have their full effect, we need to give them wide publicity particularly in regard to their existence and the work that theyare doing

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Zilliacus: I agree with a great deal that my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) has said, notably about the need for giving

Germany some help in food. I believe that the time may well come when together with our Allies we may find it possible to revise the Potsdam Agreement and treat the question of Germany as part of the general question of the reorganisation of Europe both economically and politically. But up to the present moment we have not got asfar as applying the decisions of the Potsdam Conference. We have not yet set up' all-German organisations for taking care of transport and finance, as well as those other economic questions that were contemplated at the Potsdam Conference. The Power that has prevented that is France. The French Government have objected to the setting up of any unified organs of control in Germany until they get the questions of the Ruhr and the Rhineland settled to their satisfaction. On that issue I know the Government are in great difficulties and are entitled to time to make up their mind.
I would point out, however, that until they make up their mind, the whole business of devising some over-all means of dealing with the situation in Germany is being held up. And I should like to say bluntly that I do not think it would be reasonable to separate the Ruhr, politically as well as economically, from Germany, because that would leave on our hands several millions of Germans who would indefinitely have to be governed by foreign Powers against their will, and if anything can be calculated permanently to bedevil the situation in Germany that sort of settlement would. On the other hand it does seem to me that there is a great deal to be said for the international control of the Ruhr as a starting point for the international control of steel, coal and wheat production throughout Europe, linking up with the work of the Central European Organisation and eventually with the control of the international waterways of Europe, the Rhine, the Elbe, the Oder and the Danube.
As regards the political aspect of the situation in Germany, I think there are two things to be said. The first is that part of our difficulty in our zone of Germany is that we are operating without any clear, positive idea of the kind of Germany we want to build up and the kind of political forces we wish to work with in Germany. You cannot, in the long run, drive out the Nazi idea unless you can put some other and better idea in its place. Democracy alone is much


too vague and shadowy a term, and has been abused so much that it does not mean enough to provide a positive alternative. The Labour Party, in their foreign policy report, "The International Post-War Settlement," have an alternative. In that document it isstated that Socialism is a fundamental necessity for combating Fascism, and for establishing democracy in Europe. I suggest that the present Government should frankly and openly work for that basis of reconstruction in Germany and throughout Europe, that they should work frankly with the political forces that are prepared to build up that kind of Germany. That means not a policy by us alone, but a policy that we should bring forward in discussion with our principal Allies, particularly France and the Soviet Union. They, with us, are the Powers chiefly concerned with the rebuilding of Europe.
The second and final point I wish to make is that this business of reconstructing Europe on Socialist foundations is not a job that should be treated in the spirit of a monopoly for Social Democrats; it is a job big enough for a coalition of working-class parties and forces who are prepared to carry out that programme. In that connection, I would like to detain the House for a moment or two by reading the wise and sane words used by "The Times," in a leading article in which they took issue with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill):
 Mr. Churchill was perhaps less happy in the passages in his speech in which he appeared to contrast ' Western Democracy and ' Communism ' as irreconcilable opposites dividing, or attempting to divide the world between them today "—
I should like to make it clear that "The Times" was writing about the Leader of the Opposition, and not about my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). The article goes on:
 Yet it would be an assumption of despair to hold that they are doomed to a fatal contest. Indeed, a clearer recognition of two points might well serve to mitigate on both sides some of the asperities of recent exchanges. The first is that there are many forms of government intermediate between western democracy and Communism, and some of them may be better adapted at the present stage of development to the requirements of eastern Europe or of the Middle or Far East. The second is that, while western democracy and Communism are in many respects opposed, they have much to learn from each other—Communism in the working of political institu-

tions and in the establishment of individual rights, western democracy in the development of economic and social planning.
 The ideological warfare between western democracy and Communism cannot result in an out and out victory for either side. The issue will be determined neither by clashes of eloquence nor by clashes of arms, but by the success of the great nations in dealing with the problems of social organisation in the broadest sense which the war has left behind it.
That is true wisdom, and I rejoice at the fact that my Noble Friend Lord Stans-gate, speaking in another place on 7th March, quoted those words with approval. I ask the Government to lay that doctrine to their heart I met an American officer some time ago who had just returned from the American zone in Germany, where his job had been to investigate how the business of de-Nazification way going on, and he gave it as his emphatic opinion that among the best political Forces in Germany at this time, from our point of view, were the Communists, and it was a great pity that they were not being used.
That does not mean to suggest that we should hand Germany over to Communism. On the contrary, I believe that is the only way in which we can prevent Germany being handed over to Communism—because if we are to attempt to separate Western Germany from the rest in order to turn Social Democrats in Western Germany into pocket Eberts, Scheidemanns and Noskes, relying on the British General Staff instead of, like their predecessors, on the German General Staff, then we make a present to the Communists of the argument of German national unity, as well as of the argument of social reconstruction. Therefore, I hope the Government will take a broad and comprehensive view, in the spirit of this admirable leading article of "The Times," and will realise that it is necessary for all Socialist political forces to co-operate in unifying and reconstructing Germany on lines that will enable us to see Germany incorporated into a peaceful Europe. I hope the Government will approach our French and Soviet Allies in order to work out a common policy on these lines and to make a new start in Europe.

8.43 p.m.

Lieutenant Herbert Hughes (Wolverhampton, West): I did not come prepared to take part in this Debate tonight, and I wish to raise a matter which, to some


extent, must appear insignificant by the side of the tremendous problems connected with food and industrial organisation in Germany. I want to ask the Minister whether he can give us fuller information on what is being done in the British zone of Germany, to give German people as much assistance as possible in obtaining access to current political, economic and social literature, based on democratic sources. I realise that this is a minor matter, but, nevertheless, it is one of great importance. The German people have been starved, since 1933, of any democratic thought and inspiration, but I believe that, in spite of material difficulties, they would be extremely receptive to a lead and to such political, social and economic education as we have to offer.
There are, I know, real difficulties about getting literature from Allied countries into the British zone at the moment. There are currency difficulties, which will probably mean that we or our Allies would, to some extent, have to finance democratic literature going into the British zone. I understand that Switzerland is well placed, and anxious to supply-journals and literature to Germany, but that because of currency difficulties the Control Commission, so far, have found it impossible to see their wayto let literature in from Switzerland. I believe, however, that with good will, this could be overcome, that it would be possible to allow some publishers to supply free material to Germany—which they would be prepared to do—and that if currency was not at the moment available, it would be possible to let in literature in return for blocked exchange accounts. Therefore, I hope the Minister will give this matter his sympathetic consideration, realising that, if democratic and progressive ideasare to get into Germany, it is tremendously important that the starvation of the German people, not only of food, but of literature, should be met.
I would also ask the Minister whether he can give the House some information on what, for example, is the present circulation of journals inside the British zone. What is being done to give German parties and other organisations, paper supplies to enable them to overcome printing difficulties, and get current material circulating in Germany? Beyond the question of the circulation of daily publications there is the question of books

and periodicals coming from democratic countries. This is important, and was the main reason why I rose to speak tonight. But there is another point I would like to make. I believe it is also of great importance that we should choose, and back up strongly, the elements in German political and industrial life who are in sympathy with our ideas. Reference has already been made to what is happening to the Social Democratic Party inGermany today. Last October, when I was in Berlin, I had the opportunity of meeting Herr Grotewohl, the leader of the Social Democrats, who is now advocating fusion with the Communist Party in the Eastern zone.
At that time it was quite clear that Herr Grotewohl, situated as he was with his headquarters in the Russian zone of Berlin, was under considerable difficulties, but that, left to himself he had certainly no inclinations to find his organisation merged into a united party. Herr Grotewohl, as we see,has changed his tune. I am convinced he has not done so ofhis own inclination I feel it is extremely important that we should recognise the difficulties of the parties in Berlin at the moment, and that we should in our own area give what support we can tomen of the character of Schumacher, who are putting up a tremendously courageous fight at the present time.
The third thing to which I wish to refer is the question of de-Nazification. Every time one speaks to officials of the Control Commission who are over here for a short time, and asks them whether they are satisfied with the progress of de-Nazification, the answer is always "We feel we should go a great deal further than we have done already." There is still, I believe, a tendency to ca' canny on thesubject of de-Nazification, on the assumption that if one weeds out people who have been Nazis in the past, the industrial system will collapse. I think that is a very dubious matter, and I hope the Chancellor of the Duchy will give us assurances on the subject.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Baldwin: I had not intended to take part in this Debate until I heard the remarks of the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). The hon. Member suggested that we in this country should cut our food supplies in order to


keep the Germans going. I would not like it to go out from the House that we are unanimous in that idea. The house-wives of this country have put up with very meagre rations for seven years, and to suggest that those rations should be cut in order to supply Germany, which has not suffered a food shortage for very long, is, in my opinion, wrong. If there are anyhon. Members, or any members of the community, who have spare rations, I suggest they should make those rations available to the miners and the workers in the heavy industries. Those who have the opportunity of going into restaurants and hotels to get extra meals do not feel and do not know what housewives, who have not a chance of doing that, have to put up with. If there is any surplus of food, it should be made available to people who deserve it more than the German people. From reports which I have received, I do not agree that the Germans are starving to the extent that has been suggested. The news I have received is that in the country districts the Germans are fairly well fed, and are not making to the towns the contribution which they should do. The hon. Member for Devon-port suggested that the coal output in the Ruhr was falling because of the shortage of food for the miners. That may be the reason our coal output is falling. If there is extra food available, the miners in this country should have it in order to raise our coal output.
The suggestion has been made that the newspapers which led us into war are again contributing to unrest. It has been said that the "Daily Mail" led us to Dunkirk. I suggest that memories are short. My opinion is that the "Daily Mail" and other newspapers endeavoured to open our eyes to the dangers ahead. In spite of the fact that our eyes were opened, not only by the "Daily Mail," but by the right hon. Member for Wood-ford (Mr. Churchill), when we were asked to rearm to meet the dangers ahead, hon. Members opposite did not make their contribution towards that rearmament.

8.55p.m.

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: I would like in just three minutes to bring the Debate back to the subject on which it started. Although some of the advice which has been given to the Chancellor

of the Duchy and to the Government is very sound advice, and althougn a wise long-term policy towards the Germans will make civil administration easier nevertheless, it still remains that it is essential to have a civil administration, and the appointment of that civil administration is a responsibility that must rest very heavily upon the Chancellor of the Duchy. In some respects, I believe, that civil administration falls short of requirements. I appreciate that it has done a great deal of good work in Germany The stories that were told about what would happen in Germany followingher defeat have not come true. Reconstruction work has been done to an extent which is not properly appreciated in this country, and the credit for that must go to the civil administration, to the military administration, and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy. But more and more, as responsibility is transferred from the military side to the civil side, the weaknesses of the civil administration will be shown up.
It seems to me that, in the first place, a good many of the appointments that were made were of people with the appropriate technical qualifications, but I am not so certain that they had also those qualities of leadership and character which will become more and more important as they take on the actual leadership of civil life inGermany. I agree that, in so far as is possible, the German people should be given the right and the opportunity to arrange their civil affairs, but this year and next year much of the responsibility will still rest with the British civil officers, and I think their job will be much more difficult next year than it is this year. In many respects the situation in Germany will be more difficult. The people will be getting their second wind, they will be less likely to follow meekly; the military officers willbe departing, the display of military might will be less apparent, and the people, unless properly instructed and led, will be less likely to follow so meekly next winter as they have done thus winter. Can the Chancellor of the Duchy tell me exactly how the appointments are now being made? Many good men now in Germany in one Service or another are prepared to volunteer in the Civil Control, and these men should now be transferred to the civil administration. I understand


that deputations are going round Germany asking for volunteers to serve in the civil administration. The difficulty would appear to be-that the selection is taking too long a time. Many good men are unable to wait. They are not sure what the terms will be if they accept positions. I ask, if it is possible, that the method of selection should be speeded up and that the prospective entrants should know the exact terms of service. If this were done, I think it would be possible to get into the ranks of the civil administration some good men who would serve us well in the forthcoming year.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I have the greatest possible admiration for the courage that has been shown this evening by my hon Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). I should like to put this one point to the House. This country was engaged in warfare with Fascist Germany longer than any other country in the world, longer than the Soviet Union and longer than the United States of America. I suggest to hon. Members on all sidesof the House that it is a great fact, in entire accord with the traditions of Britain, that an hon. Member should get up this evening and should have the generosity to ask that the stocks of this country should be depleted for the purpose of making sure that conditions of starvation do not occur in Germany which may be worse than those in Belsen Camp. I desire to offer only one observation to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) who made some comments a moment or two ago. I do not for one moment think that my hon. Fried suggested that there should be any cut in the rations of British people. All that he suggested was that we should be told more facts about stocks of food in this country. I should like here to offer a word to my right hon. Friend on the Front Bench. I well remember the time when the right hon. Member the Senior Burgess for Oxford University (Sir A. Salter) was most anxious that there should be some disclosure of facts relevant to the food situation. He asked for the disclosure of those facts in a precisely similar Debate to that which we are now having on the Adjournment. It is an interesting illustration of the inter-relevance of circumstances that if there had been a fuller disclosure on that previous Debate,

the British housewives would have been warned earlier of the circumstances of which, in my opinion, advantage was taken in a disgraceful manner by many Conservative newspapers in this country.

Colonel Erroll: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the" Daily Herald "was just as loud in its condemnation of the Government as any Conservative newspaper?

Mr. Blackburn: I read the "Daily Herald "with great care and I do not subscribe to the point of view of the hon. Member. In my view the "Daily Herald '' madeit perfectly clear throughout the whole of that period that the only possible criticism of the Government was for their failure to put across the facts of the situation sufficiently to the British housewives. It never made any suggestion, as has been said by hon. Members opposite—not by right hon. Members on the Front Bench—that the rations of British people had been cut because of negligence on the part of His Majesty's Government. No such suggestion could have been made by anybody who knew the facts, and therefore it is not true to say that the "Daily Herald" behaved in the same manner as other Conservative newspapers. [Laughter.] I am afraid that the proximity of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) has been too much for me.
I should like to put these points. First, we should have a greater disclosure of facts than we have yet had as to the food situation. We are entitled to know exactly what is the gross allocation of supplies by the Combined Food Board and what are the exact circumstances in Germany. What for instance, is the situation in the Russian zone? When I was in Germany six months or so ago it certainly appeared to me that the food situation in the Russian zone was a great deal worse than that inthe British zone. That may or may not be a fact, but it is certainly what I was told. But the situation in our zone is serious enough. I will put it again to the hon. Member that nobody in his senses can accuse Field-Marshal Montgomery of being pro-German. But Field-Marshal Montgomery has come to this country with reports on the situation in Germany which must surely make us all feel as anxious as my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport.
May I conclude with this general observation. Comments have been made by many Members on this side of the House this evening on what I should describe as ideological matters. I refer to this business of Democrats and Communists, the way in which the Russians are behaving in their zone and the way in which we are behaving in ours. We should make it clear to the Russian people that questions like the affiliation of the Communist Party to the Labour Party in this country, or of the Communist Party in Germany to the Social Democratic Party, have nothing whatever to do with the great, fraternal feelings and the friendship of the Labour Party for the Russian people. It is an entirely separate matter. It would be unforgivable if we allowed that issue in any circumstances to obscure the facts.

Mr. William Shepherd: Will the hon. Member tell us what this matter has to do with the issue that we are debating?

Mr. Blackburn: I believe that the hon. Member has not been present in the House during most of the Debate. He should be more careful how he interrupts me in future. It is evident that the main trouble with Germany has been that it has been not one country but four countries. The only hope for the people of Germany, as for the people of Europe, is that we should be able to re-establish once again unity among the Big Three Powers such as we had in the past. I hope that no comment which the Minister will offer tonight will in any way reflect upon the determination of His Majesty's Government to achieve again at the earliest possible moment, that unity among the Big Three in the treatment of Germany. That alone can lead to the proper rehabilitation of that country.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Proctor: Like many other hon. Members I came unprepared to speak in the Debate, but I was surprised to find that, on the opposite benches, we have a defender of the policy of the "Daily Mail." I must say that that paper has a very grave responsibility for its policy. That policy led to the situation in which we find ourselves in Europe. I would remind the House that the late Lord Rothermere, writing in the "Daily Mail," referred to Czechoslovakia as

 a ramshackle State, which should be elbowed out of existence.
That was written by the owner of the "Daily Mail" in the "Daily Mail" It is clearly an indication of its policy in Europe. As a result of a libel action in this country he had another policy for Germany—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must remind the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government have no responsibility for the "Daily Mail." We can only discuss questions of administration for which the Government are responsible.

Mr. Proctor: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker I acquit the Government of that responsibility, and I am very glad that I was able to get so far with my argument. I will now turn to the matter that we are discussing tonight.
I believe that we are faced in Europe with problems the basis of which is fear. If we could get world unity in order to deal with the problem of food, I think it would be the way in which to remove that fear. The fear which exists among the great European States—the Soviet, France and Britain—is in regard to what is to happen to the enormous productive and destructive power of Germany. The great Powers should adopt the sensible policy of placing the Ruhrunder international control. The sooner we make that clear and invite the great Powers of the world to sit down and assist us in getting the Ruhr back into peace production for peacetime aims, the sooner shall we get a sensible policy in Europe as a whole. I think also that we should invite the Soviet Union and France to come in with us. They are great powers and we are great powers, intimately concerned in the European situation. We would welcome, of course, the assistance and help of America in order tomake it a truly international affair.
There is another suggestion I would like to make. There are in Europe vast numbers of displaced persons who have no State. Let us look to their sustenance and their future inside an internationalised Ruhr. That is something we could do. There is nothing to prevent us afterwards from having political contacts and making Europe a sensible economic organisation to function as a single unit. That is the only hope for the whole of Europe, that we should


function, not as a Western bloc or as Eastern Soviet-dominated States, but as a single economic unit, producing goods and services that can be given to the people of Europe. I hope that the British Government will push forward that policy as quickly as they can.
I am quite convinced that, with the resources at our disposal even now, despite all the failures of the harvest, if we will only deal with this problem of food in the same energetic manner as we dealt with the problems of war, we can save all the communities of the world from starvation, including India and the European communities, and ourselves as well.

9.12 p.m.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I make no complaint to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. Rees-Williams) that heshould have raised this Debate even on such short notice or, in fact, that it should have taken such a wide range and touched upon so many questions upon which many Members complain that they have so little information, whereas the contributions to the Debate would seem to indicate that they are generally very well informed on most of the points, which makes my task perhaps a little easier than it might otherwise have been. As the hon. Member for South Croydon mentioned in introducing the Debate, the position in which Germany finds herself physically at the present time is a very serious one. Her leaders in the course of the war promised that if they went down, they would leave behind a trail of desolation, and they have been pretty successful. However, I can assure my hon. Friend and the House that it is not the purpose of His Majesty's Government either to' intensify the desolation that was left or to leave it unattended to, but that, on the contrary, our purposes are those laid down in the Potsdam Declaration as being the purposes of the present occupation, namely, the disarmament of Germany, the destruction of Nazism within Germany, and the encouragement of those democratic forces in the country which will enable us to bring Germany once again into the family of free and democratic nations. That will be a colossal job.
The range of the Debate has given some indication of the variety of tasks that have to be faced by our administra-

tion in the. British zone and the administration of our Allies in theother zones. It should be borne in mind that we have to administer a territory which had no central government, no local government, no democratic organisations or administrations of any kind. Everything has to be handled by officers and men of the Control Commission and Military Government. As the hon. Member for South Croydon said, our team over there is facing a responsibility that was never contemplated, and I think, from all the evidences and all the witnesses, they have done extremely well.
It is true that the division of the country into zones makes our problems more difficult and complicates the whole picture, but it is again part of our purpose that as soon as possible we should achieve a situation in which Germany can be administered as a single economic unit, as was, in fact, laid down very clearly in the Potsdam Declaration. The hon. Member for South Croydon has raised the question of the conditions of service.

It being a quarter past Nine o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Captain Blenkinsop.]

Mr. Hynd: The hon. Member raised the question of the conditions of service offered to the staff of the Control Commission and asked whether these could be considered sufficiently attractive to enable us to retain enough manpower to handle the tremendous job we have in the British zone. The figures of civilian officers which he quoted are already out of date, as a result of new conditions introduced.

Mr. Rees-Williams: The figures I quoted are taken from my hon. Friend's latest reply to Questions in the House. I have no later information on the subject.

Mr. Hynd: That emphasises even further the attractiveness of the present conditions, because the figures have gone up since that date. The numbers of officers recruited now reach 3,500. The fact is, of course, that the Control Office is at the present time having as many applications for employment as it can handle, and more. There areno signs that the conditions are not attracting, either the



numbers, or the quality, which we require. In fact, there have been many assurances given, some in this House, that the extent of contracts that were offered a little time ago and are now the basis of employment in the Control Commission, have proved extremely attractive and have been very satisfactory to the majority of those interested.
But when my hon. Friend suggests we should go ahead, offer better conditions, increase the staff and takeover more and more responsibility in Germany because that would not be a charge on the Exchequer, I could not try to convince the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that because the question of whether and to what extent we shallbe able to recover the costs ofthe occupation from German sources will depend on a large number of factors which I can only describe as imponderable at the moment. Many of these depend largely, not only on the success of our administration in our particular zone, but in our overall policy in collaboration with our Allies.
The salaries of the staff of the Control Commission, including bonuses, now consolidated, are the London Civil Service rates for men and women. In addition, there is a 25 per cent. commission allowance in the case ofmarried men and in the case of single men and all women there is 12½ per cent. on salary, plus a foreign service allowance tax free of £90 in the case of married men, and £25 for single men and all women.
My hon. Friend based the largest part of his argument, I gathered, on contracts. It is obviously difficult to give an indefinite number of extended contracts in the particular circumstances of this task. We have, however, been able to offer a number of contracts lasting until 1952, that is for seven years. Others have been offered until 1950 or 1948. The purpose of the varied length of contracts is to provide for a gradual diminution of the staff of the Control Commission as we hope the tasks will be reduced and responsibilities handedover to German administrations, German Governments and German personnel and for a great deal of the strain of administration over a period of years becoming less. The longer term of engagement up to 1952 will not, however, represent more than about 50 per cent. of the total strength of the Commission. It is quite

obvious, and we are very conscious of the fact, that the position of younger men in those circumstances is a rather difficult one.
There are however quite a large number of opportunities within the services of the Control Commission for some form of specialist work which would attract young men looking for a career after the control job is over, and fitting them, by that experience, for a professional career after they have returned to this country. On the other hand, there is a large amount of non-professional, non-technical work, some routine jobs. For these we are trying to find and to attract to them, the older men whose careers are largely behind them. As I have said, the general result has been satisfactory up to date.
My hon. Friend said that there was a provision in our conditions for a small measure of compensation in the event of a contract expiring before its normal expiry date. I do not know whether he was being entirely fair in referring to it as a small measure of compensation, because the gratuities that are offered in the event of redundancy are, in my opinion, fairly reasonable. I do not think many Members of the House would challenge that. They are calculated on salary including bonus consolidation, plus the Control Commission allowance. As an example, I will quote, for instance, the case of a woman employee engaged at a salary of £300. Added to that is £37 10s. Control Commission allowance, giving a total of £337 10s. which is taxable. She has £25 foreign service allowance tax free. If she were engaged for a period to end 30th September, 1950, and was prematurely discharged for redundancy, say in January, 1948, her compensation would be seven-twelfths of that amount of £337 10s., or £197 16s. 6d., that is, for two years short of the period of contract. In the case of a married man employed at a salary of £640, plus a Control Commission allowance bringing his remuneration up to £8oo, and being employed on a contract expiring 30th September, 1952, and discharged for redundancy three years earlier, in 1949. his compensation would be £400. I do not think that these can be considered to be small amounts of compensation in relation to the curtailment of the contract.
One other point which my hon. Friend made, in arguing we should set about establishing a permanent or semi-per-


manent civil service for Germany, was that we should look to a period of 25 years. I hope that it will not be necessary to maintain substantial numbers of British personnel in Germany for such a long period, but there are many factors affecting the type, the variety and scope of our occupation which we cannot estimate at this stage. The degree ofde-mocratisation of the country, the degree of co-operation we can obtain from German democratic organisations, the speed and efficiency with which German administrations are set up, particularly the question of central administrations, all these affect the requirements. Above all, there will be the question of whether or not we develop detailed control by British personnel or whether we can, in reasonable time, reach a position where we shall be able to depend on a smaller number of central British advisers to German administrations.
It is, therefore, obviously impossible to formulate extremely long term contracts in every case, in the peculiar circumstances of this employment, but we realise that there is a need for reassurance to those who are anxious to take on the work, and who are also anxious as to the future. For that reason the seven year contract was introduced. It is possible that the Occupation, or rather the employment of these numbers, may not last for that period, but on the other hand it is possible that even these contracts may have to be lengthened still further.
On the question of the size of the personnel of the Commission, this also, of course, is difficult to fix. Reference has already been made to the tremendous scope of the work, the tremendous responsibility of those who are in charge of it, the problems of refugees, the rehabilitation of industry, de-Nazification, the control and dispersal of displaced persons, of disarmament, and the police, security and Intelligence services—all these uncountable tasks that fall upon the relatively small British administration trying to administer this very difficult land in these very difficult times It is recognised that the job is a necessary one. It is recognised that the burden on the taxpayer and the prospects of the repayment of these costs will demand the wisest and most efficient policy and administration of which we are capable. But the price of security as we conceive it is a

high one, and it will prove to be a high one which the British public will have to face if they are to continue to follow the policy which, it has been generally accepted by all the United Nations, is the only policy that will secure us from the danger of further German aggression.
The hon. Member for West Coventry (Mr. Edelman) raised the question of the employment of Germans and to what extent we are employing, or can still further employ, Germans instead of British personnel. That obviously means that we have to decide on the measure of confidence which we can place in the German population. It also depends to a considerable degree upon the amount of employment our policy will make it possible for us to offer to the German population. In other words, taking it the other way, the amount of unemployment that may arise in Germany will obviously affect the contentment of mind of the Germans which it will be possible for us to exploit in seeking their co-operation in the rehabilitation of their land. It would be possible, taking the extreme view, to employ Germans in every branch of the Control Commission and to replace entirely the present British personnel. The logic of a number of representations in this connection would seem to point in that direction. That, of course, can be dismissed because it would be no longer a British Control Commission but would be a German Control Commission and would have no meaning at all within the policy this country is seeking to follow.
We are in this matter covered by an inter-Allied Agreement, previous to Potsdam, laid down by the European Advisory Council, which provides that control commissions in all zones shall consist of the nationals of the occupying Powers or, in particular special cases, of nationals of other United Nations. It clearly excludes the direct employment of Germans by the Control Commission, for obvious reasons. Enemy aliens, therefore, are not eligible for employment by the Control Commission, although it is true in the early stages of the occupation, through the acute shortage of capable interpreters, it was necessary to employ temporarily the services of one or two enemy aliens in that capacity.
Again, it is quite clear that there are strong objections to employing Germans, however well meaning, however well


intentioned, in positions where they have access to confidential documents and to information to which it might not be considered desirable that they should have access. Therefore, we are bound to recognise this policy and to refrain from employing German nationals in posts where they have access to such information. At the same time, we have been able to employ, we have been forced to, in any case, large numbers of local residents in the different districts in Germany—including Germans; mainly Ger-means, for that matter—for small-scaleinterpretation work, for typing work, and so on, in connection with de-Nazification and other day to day administration.. But these are not employed by the Control Commission; they are lent to the Control Commission, and are paid by the local German authorities.
The hon. Member for West Coventry also raised the question of the return of prisoners of war, and made special reference to the very interesting and remark-able experiments going on at the Wilton Park Camp. I had the pleasure of visiting it last week and of speaking at the official opening. I agree entirely that this very valuable experiment is something well worth studying by all people interested in the rehabilitation of Germany. It is, of course, in accordance with our policy, that, as far as possible, we should employ in Germany, the largest available proportion of reliable and democratically-minded Germans, and, quite obviously, if we are training selected prisoners of war for various types of occupation, public administration and so on, we shall seek, at the earliest opportunity, to get as many of these as possible back to Germany and into the right kind of employment. Some have gone already; others will follow according to the priority of the demand and the kind of position available, in whichthey can be of the most use to Germany and to our own administration.
I can hardly accept entirely, the suggestion of the hon. Member for West Coventry that we should seek to establish British labour attaches—I believe the hon. Member said in every town and village in the British zone, although I may be wrong—because that would heavily overburden the administration, and also because the cost would, at least immediately, fall on the British taxpayer. I

myself, would prefer to continue thepolicy that we have adopted of employing German trade unionists and democrats, people who have shown their opposition to Nazism and Fascism by the fact that they have taken their principles into the concentration camps and—those who have survived—have brought those principles out with them. I believe the right policy is to use, as much as possible, Germans of that quality and calibre for this kind of administration in the local areas. For that purpose we have established de-Nazification committees in every section of the British zone—in towns and villages—and those committees are now functioning very well indeed. I believe they are better informed and in a much better position to advise us, in a particular district on who has been a confirmed or dangerous Nazi, or has been guilty of the maltreatment of. French or other prisoners, during the war and otherwise, and they are much better qualified for that work than people sent out from this country.
The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Flight-Lieutenant Crawley) asked whether sufficient publicity was given in the German Press to the existence of these de-Nazification committees. I do not think there is need for any publicity in the German Press, in view of the fact that these committees exist in every town and village, and are exceedingly well-known to the Germans throughout the whole zone. The question of the speed of de-Nazification has been raised by a number of hon. Members. Some doubts have been expressed whether this workis proceeding efficiently, effectively and with the necessary speed. I have taken a very close interest in this question. As every hon. Member knows, charges have been raised from time to time concerning the employment of dangerous Nazis in high positions, but in scarcely one of these cases has the charge been substantiated. We have made immediate inquiries into any case where such an allegation has been made.
I cannot quote figures offhand, because I have very short notice of this Debate and was not aware that this question was to be raised, but many thousands of these Nazis have been displaced. The majority of the police and civil administrations in Schleswig-Holstein and Hamburg have


been dealt with. Very radical measures have been taken in every part of the zone, both in civil administration and industry, but I am prepared to say frankly that not 100per cent. of the Nazis, not even the long term 1933 Nazis, have yet been completely eradicated. I want to be quite frank with the House in this connection because it is, in some cases, a very difficult thing simply to remove every man who happens to be a Nazi, irrespective of the effect it may have on any particular set of circumstances. It is particularly dangerous, for example, in the mining industry,where long training is necessary to create the efficient mining engineer.
Hon. Members have no doubt read of certain accidents that have occurred in the Ruhr mines. and it is obvious that if there is not to be a considerable breakdown in the efficiency, inthe safety precautions and in the general control and administration of this most important industry in the British Zone—which is providing the life blood of France, Holland, Denmark and all the Western countries— we have to give some consideration both to the efficiency of the industry and to the factor of safety for human lives. That factor is indeed provided for in the quadripartite directive and. it is no use hon. Members charging the British authorities with being the only ones who haveNazis still in certain key positions, as they might be called, because it is a quadripartite directive which has been agreed by the Russians, the Americans, the French and ourselves on the Control Council. It provides that, where it is necessary for the efficiency of the occupation, it is permissible to continue to employ even Nazis who might be within the immediate dismissal category, provided, of course, that this provision is closely in our minds and closely administered and that the necessary supervision and check is kept upon those people while they are employed and that they are displaced as speedily as safety and circumstances permit.
In regard to political parties and trade unions—and bound up with this is the question of democratic literature raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for West Wolverhampton (Lieut. Herbert Hughes)—I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the importance of introducing as much democratic literature as possible into the British Zone is having the closest possible

attention. It is a difficult matter because, first of all, books, papers and journals have either to be provided from inside Germany, which means finding the paper—

Sir Henry Morris-Jones: Would the hon. Gentleman define what he means by "democratic literature "? Russia has got democratic literature.

Mr. Hynd: I happen to be talking about the British Zone and the British administration, and I should have thought that was fairly well understood. There are practical difficulties such as the shortage of newsprint. We have been sent books from neighbouring countries, but very often they look as though they have been dug out of the cellar or taken out of the back shelves and they are not particu-larly suitable for sending into Germany or anywhere else where people want readable material.

Sir W. Darling: What about "Tory M.P."?

Mr. Hynd: That suggestion will, of course, be borne in mind; I am all for it. Even with the difficulties and the shortage of newsprint, we have been able to develop the production of political newspapers on the basis of allowing each of the three political parties one news- paper which is published twice a week. That arrangement, if properly organised, covers the district six days in the week We have also begun the circulation of a zonal newspaper which is being run under the auspices of a group of Germans belonging to the democratic parties, to the trade unions and other groups.
I am afraid the amount of time at my disposal is inadequate and, therefore, I shall have to be very brief in dealing with other matters which have been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for West Coventry raised the question of trade unions and the development of zonal organisations. Those are coming. The policy we have followed is one of allowing trade unions to form themselves. We have not taken the line of establishing one individual in charge of some particular industry. We have taken the line that a trade union is a spontaneous development, that they grow within the industry, make their contacts outside their own immediate area and gradually build themselves up to a zonal organisation. We are not driving


or forcing it, but we are encouraging it. My hon. Friend asked, why should not we let the unions which are unable to bargain on wages under present conditions, at least advise? We are. There is a quadripartite agreement on that subject, and the trade unions are allowed not only to advise but to discuss and negotiate any modifications in that connection. The authorities in the zone have been instructed, and are loyally carrying out the instruction, that they must give every opportunity to trade unions and political representatives of other democratic groups to have the fullest possible contact with our representatives on all levels
.
The hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Zilliacus) raised the question of our policy in the Ruhr. That is somewhat beyond my territory, but with regard to his statement that the British Government should make up their minds on this question, I would remind him, and others who have raised the question, that the British Government are only a quarter of the present government in Germany, and it would not be enough for the British Government to make up their minds. Nor do I think anything wouldbe gained by any unilateral declarations, by a kind of competitive broadcast by the four Powers on what they want in this particular direction. The wisest and obvious method is mutual discussion, and every attempt to seek a common agreement which can be applied by all governments simultaneously.
I have not much time in which to deal with the food situation, which has been raised by the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot). I endorse everything he said

with regard to the difficulties which this situation will create in the production of coal, and on the effect of any fall in production of coal upon France, Holland and the other neighbouring countries. I am conscious of the growing need of France for Ruhr coal 1 have had to give a considerable amount oftime to an endeavour to meet that demand. It is not possible at the moment to get anywhere near providing France and these other countries with the amount of coal required for their immediate essential purposes. It is impossible for me, at this stage, to estimate what may be the final results of the food cut upon coal production of the Ruhr, but it is obvious that, if we curtail the food of the miner and his family, we are asking for a reduction in the total output of coal.
That is one of the additional problems arising out of this situation which will have to be faced. I am asked, what is the position in the British zone? We have had to cut the ration to a standard ration of 1,000 calories. That means that 1,000 calories is the basic ration for the non-worker—the housewife, the old age pensioner and people of that kind. Rations are graded according to whether one is a medium or a heavy worker, an expectant mother, a nursing mother and so on. We are endeavouring to spread out the available food to the best advantage, but it is obvious that 1,000 calories is a dangerous level. We are fully aware of the fact, and we have no intention—

It being a Quarter to Ten o'Clock, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.